The husband disclosed his assets, worth £850,000. The High Court held the pre-nup valid but ordered that the husband receive a lump sum of £400,000. The husband appealed on the grounds the wife’s misrepresentation of her wealth was a vitiating factor, the husband signed the agreement on the day of the wedding under undue pressure, and the judge was guilty of gender discrimination by making substantially less provision for the husband’s needs than would have been made to a wife.
Delivering the main judgment last week in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055, Lady Justice King said ‘the husband had the worst of both worlds: no legal advice once disclosure was made and no honest disclosure to inform his decision making’.
King LJ held the judge should have ‘concluded that the deliberate decision by the wife not to disclose her business assets and her interest in her mother's house amounted to fraudulent non-disclosure which vitiates the agreement’.
Peter Burgess, partner at Burgess Mee, said: ‘In a rare example of a pre-nup being successfully challenged, the judgment reinforces the fact that if duress, fraud or misrepresentation is present, then a pre-nup will not be upheld.
‘It also underlines the importance of specialist advice being taken in every case to ensure that the criteria laid out 15 years ago in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42—the landmark Supreme Court decision that led to pre-nuptial agreements being upheld by the courts unless there is unfairness or certain procedural requirements are not met—are complied with to the letter.’
The case will now return to the High Court for assessment by a different judge on the basis the pre-nup does not exist.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
