The recent Family Court case of PN v SA [2025] EWFC 141 represents a pivotal moment in the legal treatment of coercive control within the context of marital agreements. In awarding the wife £230.78m (one of the largest divorce settlements in English legal history) the court delivered a clear and compelling message: coercive influence, when subtle and sustained, can undermine the validity of agreements that appear consensual on their face.

This judgment reflects a maturing understanding that coercion is not always loud or violent. The court’s acknowledgment that “persistent and attritional conduct” can erode an individual’s autonomy is a welcome and necessary development. It brings family law into closer alignment with the broader societal and criminal law recognition of coercive control, as codified in the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Crucially, the case reinforces the principle that procedural fairness is not merely a formality in the creation of marital agreements. While the court reaffirmed the need for full financial disclosure and independent legal advice, it went further and emphasised that emotional manipulation, isolation from legal support, or sustained psychological pressure can render an agreement fundamentally flawed and vulnerable to challenge.

To mitigate the risk of future challenges on the grounds of pressure or undue influence, practitioners should adopt a proactive and holistic approach. This includes encouraging early engagement with the process (well before the wedding) and ensuring that both parties receive independent legal advice. Full and frank financial disclosure is essential, but so too is sensitivity to the emotional and relational dynamics at play. Practitioners should be alert to signs of imbalance or vulnerability, and carefully document the negotiation process, including the rationale behind key terms. Allowing time for reflection between finalising and signing the agreement and considering the use of mediators or neutral facilitators where appropriate, can further safeguard against coercion.

For practitioners, this ruling is both a warning and a guide. It accentuates the importance of documenting not just the legal process, but the relational context in which agreements are negotiated. It also empowers individuals (particularly those who may have felt pressured or marginalised) to challenge agreements that they have not truly consented to. 

In practical terms, this judgment should prompt a recalibration of how we advise clients on nuptial agreements. It is no longer (and has not been for a long time) sufficient to tick procedural boxes. We must be alert to the dynamics of power and control and ensure that our clients are not only legally informed but also emotionally and psychologically free to make decisions about their future.