The Court of Appeal’s decision in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1071 has drawn sharp attention to the consequences of deliberate non-disclosure in financial remedy proceedings, particularly where a pre-nuptial agreement is in play. 

Jenny Helliwell and Simon Entwistle married in July 2019 and lived in a substantial property in Dubai gifted to Helliwell by her father. The marriage lasted just three years, ending in mid-2022 when Entwistle was removed from the family home. There are no children of the marriage.

Entwistle applied for a financial remedy under English law, seeking £2.4m on the basis that Helliwell held assets worth £74m. Helliwell disputed this, claiming her net worth was £61.5m, and sought to enforce a pre-nuptial agreement in which Entwistle had agreed to receive “no settlement upon divorce.” Despite this, she later made an open offer of over £800,000 during proceedings.

In March 2025, Francis J upheld the essential terms of the pre-nuptial agreement, finding that it was written in “straightforward plain English” and that Entwistle “knew exactly what he was doing” when he signed it. He was told to learn how to cook an omelette and was awarded just £400,000 to meet his needs - later reduced to £325,000 following a costs order in Helliwell’s favour.

Entwistle appealed, arguing that the pre-nuptial agreement was unfair due to Helliwell’s lack of financial disclosure and the pressure he faced to sign it on the day of the wedding. He claimed she had exploited a dominant position and misled him, and that the judge had failed to properly assess his needs in light of Helliwell’s wealth and their lifestyle during the marriage. He also raised concerns about gender bias in the court’s reasoning.

The Court of Appeal found in Entwistle’s favour, concluding that Helliwell had deliberately concealed tens of millions of pounds of business assets in her name and used misleading correspondence to induce him to sign the agreement without legal advice. As a result, the pre-nuptial agreement was vitiated, and the case has been remitted to the High Court for a reassessment of Entwistle’s needs. Crucially, Helliwell was ordered to pay £670,000 in indemnity costs, including £75,000 previously awarded against Entwistle, which she must now repay. The “out of the norm” conduct justified a more punitive costs order. 

For practitioners, Helliwell v Entwistle is a stark reminder of the importance of full disclosure and independent legal advice when entering into pre-nuptial agreements. It also highlights the court’s willingness to penalise dishonest conduct and revisit agreements that were procured unfairly. The financial and reputational consequences of failing to meet disclosure obligations can be severe.