Helliwell v Entwistle – the (actual) conclusion!

Back in August, perhaps prematurely, we eagerly wrote about the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Helliwell v Entwistle – confidently calling it the ‘conclusion’ – read here! However, suffice to say we called it too early as, following the Court of Appeal decision, which was very much in favour of Mr Entwistle (and extremely critical of Ms Helliwell), Ms Helliwell applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Her application was ultimately unsuccessful and, on 19 November 2025, three Supreme Court justices refused permission for Ms Helliwell to appeal citing that the application ‘does not raise an arguable point of law or a point of law of general public importance’. 

These proceedings have captured the interest of many family lawyers as nuptial agreements are ever growing in popularity and a very topical issue, as well as there being more interesting aspects of the case concerning Ms Helliwell’s ‘fraudulent’ non disclosure.

A quick recap….

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

During the livestream of the Court of Appeal 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.’

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].

The appeal

The matter was remitted to the High Court. In the meantime, Ms Helliwell sought permission to appeal on the following grounds:

(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with the trial judge’s factual findings by substituting its own finding that the appellant had made a deliberate decision not to disclose the full extent of her assets?

 (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the appellant’s omission to fully disclose her assets amounted to fraudulent non-disclosure? 

(3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the non-disclosure was material to the respondent’s decision to enter the pre-nuptial agreement, and that the agreement was therefore vitiated?

The Supreme Court justices refused permission on each ground and so the matter will be remitted to the High Court (unless, of course, the parties manage to reach an agreement before then).

To conclude

This case, which has involved all levels of court in the country (including the Supreme Court), racked up excessive costs and cost both parties significant emotional stress is seemingly coming to an end. In a society where nuptial agreement are becoming increasingly common, this case is of wide interest particularly concerning the court’s clear stance on non-disclosure (especially, as in this case, it was very extreme as over 70% of Ms Helliwell’s wealth was not disclosed). 

One further point…

It may be that there is (at least!) one further judgment to come, as the matter will be remitted to the High Court to give fresh consideration to what award should be made for Mr Entwistle (the nuptial agreement having been vitiated), so watch this space in case there is one further judgment….or maybe more if there is then a further appeal against the award.