Divorce proceedings in the UK have principles of fairness at their core. The legal framework aims to ensure that both parties receive a just and equitable resolution, tailored to their unique circumstances, rather than applying a one-size fits all solution. To achieve this, the court takes into account their individual circumstances, financial and non-financial contributions to the marriage, and notably their needs post-divorce. But exactly how far does the court go to achieve this?

In the recent divorce of Jenny Helliwell and Simon Entwistle, the Judge brought a rather comical approach to the parties’ needs post-divorce. In this high value divorce, the husband made an application for £2.5m from his wife, who is worth an estimated net-worth of £65m. The parties had signed a prenuptial agreement to protect the wife’s wealth in the event of a divorce – something that Entwistle was keen to circumvent. 

As part of his £2.5m claim, the husband sought an allowance of £26,000 per year because he lacked any cooking skills and could “not even make an omelette”, and an annual flight allowance of £36,000 to enable him to travel in luxury. 

The Judge’s response to take on these requests was one for the books…

Mr Justice Francis told Entwistle that instead of ordering food, he should learn to cook, saying “you do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well”.

The Judge also dismissed the husband’s flight allowance, labelling the claim “astonishing”.

The Judge awarded Entwistle with a mere £400,000, reduced by an order to pay his ex-wife £75,000 on account of her costs. When considering how far the court will go to achieve fairness, this case demonstrates that the court will base an award on “needs” and not “want”. 

As the Judge observed, “being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that after the relationship has ended”.

Entwistle is appealing this decision, arguing there was “gender prejudice”. We will watch this closely as it develops to see how the court handle this appeal. Do you think this ruling was fair?