Helliwell v Entwistle live – the conclusion!
On 19 March 2025, the Court of Appeal heard the case of Helliwell (respondent) v Entwistle (appellant) and many Family lawyers (and indeed the UK population) had the benefit of watching the livestream of the hearing and seeing in real time the arguments put forward by the parties’ Counsel. The Judgment has now been handed down and the Court of Appeal have allowed Mr Entwistle’s appeal, determining that the prenuptial agreement was vitiated by Ms Entwistle’s deliberate non-disclosure (it was said that 73% of her wealth was not disclosed to him). Accordingly, the pre-nuptial agreement ‘cannot stand’.
A summary of the arguments put forward on appeal can be read here - Helliwell v Entwistle Live. In summary, Mr Entwistle appealed a final order made by Francis J on 15 March 2024. The parties had entered into a ‘drop hands’ pre-nuptial agreement on the day of their wedding, which said that Mr Entwistle would receive ‘no settlement upon divorce’. Francis J gave effect to that agreement, but ordered Ms Helliwell to pay Mr Entwistle a lump sum of £400,000, in circumstances where Ms Helliwell was worth circa £61 million (on her case) and nearer £74 million (on his case). Earlier in the proceedings, Ms Helliwell had openly offered Mr Entwistle more than double what Francis J awarded him, and Mr Entwistle’s award (of £400,000) was further reduced (to £325,000) by a costs order made in Ms Helliwell’s favour.
As is described in the Court of Appeal judgment, Francis J observed that the case was “a ‘paradigm’ for how not to conduct litigation following the breakdown of a short, childless marriage. He described how difficult each of the parties had found giving evidence and said that the ‘misery affecting both the husband and the wife was palpable’.
Court of Appeal findings
Following the seminal case of Radmacher v Granatino (in 2010) the law has been clear that a nuptial agreement will not be valid unless clear and accurate financial disclosure was provided when the agreement was entered into. During the livestream of the March hearing, the arguments put forward on behalf of Mr Entwistle focused on the lack of - and inaccuracies in - the disclosure given by Ms Helliwell, and this was central to the Court of Appeal ultimately finding in his favour.
The Court of Appeal held that it was ‘inescapable’ that Ms Helliwell’s decision not to disclose her business assets was ‘fraudulent’ and, as this was deliberate non-disclosure, it ‘falsified and made untrue the wife’s express representation to the husband …of the agreement that she had made full and frank disclosure of her financial resources.’
There is extensive discussion about the wife’s non-disclosure at paragraphs 110-126 of the Judgment (and some of the commentary makes for eye watering criticism of the wife) as the court refers to her ‘deceit’ which was ‘undoubtedly deliberate’. The court made clear that, whilst parties can agree ‘the extent of and approach to be taken to disclosure’, a wilful or fraudulent breach of that agreement (such that the disclosure made bears no resemblance to the true wealth of a party)… is conduct capable of being material non-disclosure as it deprives the other party of the information that they have agreed is necessary in order for them to decide whether to agree to a pre-nuptial agreement in the terms proposed’ [paragraph 122].
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal concluded that there must now be a ‘fresh consideration’ of the husband’s needs and, in particular, his housing provision – crucially, on the basis that the nuptial agreement is effectively ignored. The matter has been remitted to the High Court where the parties will appear again, unless a settlement is now reached (noting that Mr Entwistle had originally been seeking £2.5m and Ms Helliwell had, at one stage, offered him £800,000).
Whilst nuptial agreements are now much more commonplace, and an accepted wealth management tool, this case serves as a stark reminder to parties that, even in cases involving nuptial agreements (with the recognition of autonomy that accompanies them), the court will take a firm stance against those who do not provide full and accurate disclosure.
