Helliwell v Entwistle Live
Yesterday the Court of Appeal heard the case of Helliwell (respondent) v Entwistle (appellant) and many lawyers had the benefit of watching the livestream of the hearing via the Court of Appeal website. Mr Entwistle seeks to appeal a final order made by Mr Justice Francis on 15 March 2024 which required his ex-wife (Ms Helliwell) to pay him a lump sum of c£400,000, whilst she is worth circa £61 million (on her case) and nearer £74 million (on his case).
The parties were married for three years and did not have children. They signed a “drop hands” pre-nuptial agreement (signed on the day of the wedding) – which Mr Justice Francis gave effect to when deciding that the husband should only receive a limited lump sum payment based on his needs. The husband had previously rejected an offer of £800,000 (which the Judge found was ‘generous’ and the husband ‘should have accepted’).
Notwithstanding that the pre-nuptial agreement was signed on the day of the wedding (when the Law Commission recommends agreements are signed at least four weeks in advance) it was clearly drafted and recorded that each party was to keep their own separate assets, they would not make any financial claims against the other and any property occupied as a family home would be divided between them in the shares relevant to their contribution. Mr Justice Francis found that the agreement was written in ‘straightforward plain English’ and the husband ‘knew exactly what he was doing’ – even though he had received very limited legal advice and financial disclosure from the wife.
The livestream of the appeal really brought the issues to life and allowed lawyers and the public to see the arguments put forward on behalf of each of the parties and the insightful questions asked by the three Court of Appeal Judges. Nuptial agreements are now much more commonplace 15 years on from the seminal case of Radmacher v Granatino and it is well understood that agreements will be upheld if certain legal safeguards are met (including disclosure, lack of duress and fairness). Mr Entwistle’s appeal includes arguments about both the lack of and inaccuracy of the disclosure from Ms Helliwell and the unfairness in the size of his award relative to the wife’s wealth and the standard of living they enjoyed during their marriage (and the period that they lived together for before they were married). It was said by Mr Entwistle that the Court would not have reached the same conclusion if it were a wife in his position and a husband in Ms Helliwell’s; a point some Family lawyers had also pondered with Ms Radmacher and Mr Granatino.
