At first glance, the case reads like many others that passes through the Family Court: an ultra-high-net-worth husband (H) and wife (W), both of Middle Eastern origin, disputing the enforceability of a post-nuptial agreement signed during their marriage.
But beneath the numbers – a £230 million award to W, one of the largest ever made – lies a deeper question: what does it mean to give consent, freely and fairly, in the context of a relationship shaped by dependence, pressure, and imbalance? Let’s take a closer look at this case and coercion in nuptial agreements more generally.
What was the dispute really about?
H and W met in 1999, married in 2003, and had four children together. H controlled vast wealth held in offshore structures, while W had no significant personal assets or independent income. As the marriage progressed, W became increasingly emotionally, financially, and practically reliant on her husband.
Two post-nuptial agreements were at issue: one signed in 2021, and another proposed in 2023. In both, W was asked to give up substantial financial claims in the event of divorce. She did so. But years later, she challenged the enforceability of those agreements, arguing that her consent had not been freely given.
The Family Court agreed.
What stood out was not a single act of force or a moment of duress, but something more insidious: the cumulative effect of sustained emotional pressure. There were no overt threats, but the control was constant.
Why is this case significant?
Since Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, the courts have supported the use of nuptial agreements, provided they are entered into freely, with understanding, and are fair at the time of enforcement. But PN v SA marks a shift. Here, the court focused not just on the fairness of the financial terms, but on how those terms were agreed.
Mrs Justice Knowles found that W’s autonomy had been worn down over time. H persistently questioned her loyalty, delayed and obstructed her access to legal advice, and conditioned her financial security, and, by implication, that of their children, on her signing the agreement.
It was, as the court recognised, a slow, steady erosion of the ability to say no.
When does pressure become coercion?
There is, of course, a line. Families, particularly those with generational wealth, routinely discuss trusts, succession, and asset protection. A degree of persuasion is to be expected. But in PN v SA, the court found that H crossed that line.
H disparaged W’s trusted advisers. He threatened financial consequences if she resisted. He also created an atmosphere in which compliance felt like the only safe option. That, the court held, invalidated the foundation of consent.
The agreement may have looked procedurally sound. But voluntariness cannot be ticked off a checklist, it must be real, not just apparent.
What should families take away?
This case is not an attack on nuptial agreements. Far from it. But it is a reminder that formality is not enough. Legal advice, disclosure, and cooling-off periods are necessary safeguards, but they cannot rescue a process that is fundamentally coercive.
For practitioners, this means:
- Focus on substance, not just process. Even a procedurally correct agreement may be set aside if the emotional context was compromised.
- Be alert to subtle forms of pressure. Coercion does not always look aggressive. It may sound like flattery, dependence, or even concern.
- Support both parties. The more vulnerable spouse must have genuine access to advice, space, and security.
- Record the journey. Contemporary notes of legal advice, capacity assessments, and the atmosphere surrounding discussions may all prove crucial later.
A broader shift in the law?
PN v SA reflects something larger: a growing judicial awareness of the unseen forces that can shape human behaviour. From financial remedy cases to child arrangements, courts are increasingly tuned in to the invisible scaffolding of emotional control.
This is not a new principle. Equity has long resisted enforcement of agreements procured through dominance. But the lens is now more psychologically informed, more culturally nuanced, and more willing to ask uncomfortable questions about what “freely given” really means.
Final thoughts
Nuptial agreements remain vital tools for protecting wealth, clarifying expectations, and avoiding litigation. But they only work when both parties are genuinely free to decline their terms.
PN v SA reframes the legal conversation around consent. It reminds us that control is not always loud, and coercion is not always violent.
In the end, the question was not simply whether W signed. It was whether she was free to choose.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
