Prenup not Enforced by Out-of-Touch Family Law Judges

The case in question is Helliwell v Entwhistle¹, and concerns the prenup entered into prior to the marriage of Jenny Helliwell and Simon Entwhistle.

The Important Facts – Creating the Prenup

In the prenup, it was agreed that in the event of divorce, each person would retain any property held in their own names, and to split any jointly owned property 50:50. It was also acknowledged that, in reaching this agreement, both persons had provided ‘full and frank disclosure’ of their economic position, that was ‘not completely detailed’ but ‘substantially complete in all material respects and on this assumption they voluntarily and expressly accept the disclosure provided by the other as being sufficient to enter into this Agreement’².

This process saw Jenny disclose assets worth around £18m to Simon. Upon divorce, it transpires that she was in fact worth around £66m. The court has decided that she knew that she had a lot more than £18m to her name and deliberately concealed this from Simon. This appears to be an entirely reasonable conclusion.

As such, the Court of Appeal have decided that she did not in fact give full and frank disclosure, such that the prenup should not be upheld. This is where the court’s judgement becomes silly.

Analysis – Should the Prenup be Upheld?

Prior to the Court of Appeal’s decision, the High Court initially determined that although the disclosure provided was ‘a number lower than the truth or lower than it should have been’, it nevertheless remains true that ‘it was obvious to the husband that the wife was extremely wealthy’³, and therefore upheld the prenup.

So, the High Court judge implicitly determined that Simon’s knowledge that Jenny was extremely wealthy was the sufficient disclosure needed to enable Simon to enter into the agreement. This accords with common sense. It is easy to imagine how knowledge of someone being ‘extremely wealthy’ might bear upon their partner’s decision to enter or not enter into a prenup with them.

When overturning this decision, the Court of Appeal decided it to be a ‘mischaracterisation’ to ‘simply’ state that the disclosure was ‘a number lower than the truth’. They do not explain why. They mainly rely on the observation that this is in fact ‘a case where 73% of the assets were deliberately not disclosed’⁴. But, so what?

It is taken as a given that 66 being bigger than 18 renders the financial disclosure by Jenny to be not full and not frank. But why?

What trail of logic might lead the same person to enter into a prenup with someone worth £18m but not someone worth £66m? What would the reasoning be? What would that conversation look like? Both figures paint the same picture for Simon – that Jenny is similarly wealthy. They are both qualititatively similar and no more or less sufficient than each other for enabling Simon to know what he was getting into. A marriage with someone who has a lot of wealth – a lot more than he has – that he would not be entitled to upon separation. On any reasonable balancing of probabilities, his decision to enter into the agreement would not have been different if the extent of Jenny’s wealth was £18m or £66m.

This view is supported by the fact that Simon initially sought £9.6m upon divorce, and by the time of the Final Hearing was only seeking £2.4m⁵. These clearly look like the aspirational number and more realistic number of a weaker party to a short marriage, who has been content to rely upon an understanding that the matrimonial pot is worth, totally, around £20m. On the one hand, he says that disclosure of the extra millions would have made all the difference, and relies on this claim when seeking to strike down the prenup. Yet on the other hand, he appears in that same moment, in negotiations, to be placing no actual reliance upon this information⁶.

Later in their judgement, the Court of Appeal goes on to say that a ‘wilful or fraudulent breach of [a prenup] such that the disclosure made bears no resemblance to the true wealth of a party is…capable of being material non-disclosure [that] 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’⁷. Again, why does disclosure of £18m bear no resemblance to £66m? Why is this evidence of at least £18m not sufficient for all intents and purposes that Simon may have had at the point of agreeing to the prenup? No explanation is offered.

A friend of mine who is a corporate lawyer once said that family law is about as intellectually rigorous as colouring by numbers. When one reads decisions like this, that get signed off on by the most esteemed names in family law, it sometimes feels hard to disagree.

Where does this leave us? Will it, as some believe, create a world in which persons are more careful about providing entirely accurate financial disclosure prior to marrying? Probably not. It is probably more likely that prenups will have to more expressly state that the parties are not engaging in full and frank disclosure, but understand each other’s finances enough to make the decision that they are making.

In a case like Jenny and Simons, the prenup might state something like “Jenny has disclosed assets worth £18m in her name. Simon acknowledges that he would also have entered into this agreement if he had known Jenny to be worth £180m”. It shouldn’t be necessary to say so, but it’s an easy enough thing to include.

What are other Lawyers Saying?

• JMW, who acted for Simon in this case, conclude that the case shows that ‘where the parties agree to undergo full and frank disclosure of their assets…the parties must provide that full and frank disclosure’⁸. As noted above though, it is not at any point established in the judgement why disclosure of £18m was not sufficiently full or frank for all intents and purposes.
• Payne Hicks Beach, acting for Jenny, have made no comment.
• Slater and Gordon, in the wake of this decision, comment that ‘if there is an agreement to provide financial disclosure, which is always recommended, then it should be full disclosure of each parties financial resources’⁹. This is incorrect and contrary to established case law and the express wording of the Court of Appeal’s judgement in this case¹⁰. Financial disclosure does not need to be full and frank, and committing unnecessarily to this higher than necessary standard may end up defeating the intentions of the parties.
• Withers sensibly and reservedly observe that on a ‘practical level…clients and their lawyers need carefully to review what representations are being given about the disclosure proffered and ensure these are caveated appropriately’¹¹. This is similar to what I suggest above. I fear that I am not cool enough to pull off casual use of words like ‘proffered’ and ‘caveated’.

Final Thoughts

The prenup should have been upheld. Jenny Helliwell has been done dirty by the justice system. She appealed to the Supreme Court, with the hope that they would review and overturn the Court of Appeal’s bad decision. In November 2025 the Supreme Court has declined to do so. Jenny deserves to feel quite outraged.

You can read the full judgement here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/1055.

I’m Ricky Hepburn, and I was mentored by Ayesha Vardag – the preeminent expert on prenuptial agreements in the UK. It was Vardags who made prenups enforceable in the first place, following their success in the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino¹².

Since then, the courts have gotten themselves into a bit of a muddle, proven most recently by their approach to Jenny and Simon’s matter. If you are seeking to create an enforceable agreement and successfully protect your wealth, it is important to get in touch with someone who understands the court’s web of nonsense in it’s totality.

And I am less expensive than Ayesha. Reach out today to book your free consultation call.

1. Helliwell v Entwhistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 ↩︎
2. ibid – Para.23 ↩︎
3. Helliwell v Entwhistle [2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam) – Para.103 ↩︎
4. ibid 1 – Para.65 ↩︎
5. ibid 3 – Para.9-10 ↩︎
6. This looks like a critical tactical blunder by Simon’s lawyers. One that has ultimately gone unpunished, but might easily have tanked his case if subject to a more sensible judgement. ↩︎
7. ibid 1 – Para.123 ↩︎
8. https://www.jmw.co.uk/blog/pre-nuptial-agreements/entwistle-v-helliwell-2-the-dangers-of-non-disclosure ↩︎
9. https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom/helliwell-v-entwistle-prenuptial-agreements/ ↩︎
10. ibid 1 – Para.122 ↩︎
11. https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/how-to-make-a-prenuptial-agreement-stick%E2%80%A6-the-court-of-appeal-decision-in-helliwell-v-entwistle ↩︎
12. [2010] 3 WLR 1367 ↩︎