At the end of July 2025, the Court of Appeal handed down Judgment after an appeal from the husband, Mr Entwistle (“Husband”) to set aside the terms of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement he entered with Jenny Helliwell (“Wife”).

This article is not intended to look at the Court’s approach to or the drafting of Pre-Nuptial Agreements as that is covered by Kate Williams in her article To Pre(nup) or not to Pre(nup): that is the question. It looks at the impact of deliberate non-disclosure and whether the Pre-Nuptial Agreement should be upheld in such situations.

The background

Wife came from significant wealth, with her father having an extensive businesses and properties across the Middle East. When the parties met, Husband worked as an accountant earning c£120,000 per year. Wife worked for her father in the family business.

On the day of the wedding (disregarding the Law Commission’s recommendation that they be entered into at least 28 days beforehand), the parties entered into a Pre-Nuptial Agreement. This was a ‘drop hands’ agreement where the parties agreed to walk away with their separate assets and share anything jointly owned.

Under the terms of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Wife disclosed assets totalling over c£18.2m whilst Husband disclosed assets of c£1m. What Wife failed to disclose was assets of nearly £47.9m (valued at just over £66m at the date of the original Hearing) which included business interests with her father, a property owned with her mother in Wimbledon, and land in Dubai.

The appeal arose after the Court at first instance gave effect to the Pre-Nuptial Agreement under which Husband was to receive nothing from Wife save that the Judge awarded him a lump sum of £400,000 (which was reduced to £325,00 following a costs order made against him) to meet his needs. In contrast, Wife retained assets of between £60m to £70m.

The question arising was should Wife’s failure to have disclosed almost 73% of her wealth lead to the Pre-Nuptial Agreement not being upheld by the Court?

Wife argued that Husband understood he was marrying someone with significant wealth and consequently, it should not impact on the validity of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement.

Husband sought that he should not be held to the terms given that there had been material non-disclosure by Wife and that he had been “persuaded” to enter it by her father who had assured him that he would always be well looked after.

What did the Court of Appeal decide?

Wife accepted that she knew the assets were in her name, albeit not the extent of the value.  It was, therefore, concluded that it was a deliberate decision by Wife not to disclose the assets and that that decision amounted to “fraudulent non disclosure” and consequently the Pre-Nuptial Agreement was held not to stand.

The case returns to the family Courts for further consideration of Husband’s needs without the Pre-Nuptial Agreement being considered. It remains to be seen what the final decision will be.

This matter differed to the key case of Granatino v Radmacher whereby the Pre-Nuptial Agreement was upheld notwithstanding that there had been no finanical disclosure, as the husband in the Radmacher case knew the wife was exceptionally wealthy and there had been no disclosure of the wife’s assets at all.

In this case, the terms of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement (prepared by Wife’s solicitors) expressly recorded that she had provided full and frank financial disclosure. She had been advised to provide full disclosure and that a failure to do so (by either party) could leave the agreement “open to challenge”.

As a result of the Wife’s “fraudulent” actions, the Husband secured Costs Orders against her for the proceedings and the appeal itself. He was awarded costs on the indemnity basis (which is more favourable to Husband) of just shy of £670,000.

The impact on the Wife is likely to be huge – not only having to pay her own legal costs, plus the Costs Orders made in Husband’s favour, and now incurring further litigation to determine what share Husband will be awarded when the case returns to the Family Court. Her deliberate omission will be extremely costly.

Where does this leave Pre Nuptial Agreements?

Helliwell v Entwistle does not change the current position regarding Pre-Nuptial Agreements, namely that providing they are fair and entered into and executed properly, then they are likely to be upheld by the Court.

It does, however, make clear that the Court will take a stand against fraudulent behaviour.  Where parties agree to provide full financial disclosure when entering into a Pre-Nuptial Agreement and that is recorded within the agreement itself, then that is exactly what they must do.

If there is deliberate non-disclosure or deliberate misrepresentation, then the Court must decide whether it vitiates the Pre-Nuptial Agreement and if then is a decision for the Court to determine whether the terms should be upheld or set aside.

If you have any questions on Pre-Nuptial Agreements, please do contact a member of the Geldards Family Team.