The 2025 Court of Appeal ruling in Helliwell v Entwistle marks a pivotal moment in family law regarding prenuptial agreements, asset disclosure, and fairness. This case shows what happens when one party conceals substantial wealth, and how the law responds when those agreements sour.
The 2025 Court of Appeal ruling in Helliwell v Entwistle marks a pivotal moment in family law regarding prenuptial agreements, asset disclosure, and fairness. This case shows what happens when one party conceals substantial wealth, and how the law responds when those agreements sour.
The facts: Hidden assets and a “drop-hands” prenuptial agreement
Simon Entwistle and Jenny Helliwell married in 2019. On their wedding day, they signed a “drop-hands” prenuptial agreement: each would retain their own assets and make no claims on the other’s property upon divorce. According to Mr Justice Francis in the High Court, the document was clear, voluntary, and entered into with legal advice, even though this was minimal.
Helliwell initially disclosed approximately £18–23 million in assets. However, on appeal, it emerged she had hidden nearly £48 million, about 73% of her total wealth. Initially, Entwistle asked for £10 million, later revising his claim to between £2.4–2.5 million, but the High Court granted him only £400,000 (later reported as approximately £325,000 after costs), roughly 0.5% of Helliwell’s fortune.
What is a “drop-hands” prenuptial agreement?
This is a type of prenup where both parties agree in advance, that if they separate or divorce:
-
Each keeps what they brought into the marriage (and anything acquired in their own name during it).
-
Neither makes financial claims against the other — no lump sums, property transfers, maintenance, or pension sharing.
-
Both “drop hands” after separation, meaning they walk away with no further claims and bear their own legal costs.
In civil disputes, a “drop hands” settlement means both sides drop their claims and pay their own costs. Applied to a prenup, it is essentially a mutual revocation of claims.
While such agreements can be influential, the courts won’t uphold them if they’re unfair at the time of divorce, especially if full financial disclosure did not take place, independent legal advice was not taken, or if needs (e.g. housing, childcare) wouldn’t be met.
Prenuptial agreements and the impact of non-disclosure
This case underscores that prenuptial agreements are not mere formality—they depend fundamentally on honest and full financial disclosure. Glossing over assets can render them void.
In the High Court, Francis J upheld the prenuptial agreement, emphasising that Helliwell had provided some financial disclosure, and Entwistle had agreed with advice, making the arrangement fair in context. The judge dismissed his lavish demands of £26,000 per annum for a meal plan, and £36,000 for flights, responding with the now-infamous: “Learn” to cook.
Crucially, however, the High Court treated Helliwell’s non-disclosure as an unfortunate but non-fatal flaw, and still upheld the prenuptial agreement.
The Court of Appeal, led by Lady Justice King, took a starkly different view.
The agreement required full and frank disclosure of assets. Helliwell’s omission of nearly £48 million breached a condition precedent, and Entwistle was deprived of critical information when agreeing.
Under Radmacher v Granatino (2010) two-stage test, fraud is a classic aggravating factor. In this case, Helliwell’s non-disclosure was intentional and not merely a minor misstatement; it was a material misrepresentation that undermined consent.
The court also found that once fraud is established, the party responsible must prove the omission was immaterial. Helliwell failed to do so, and her claim that Entwistle “knew she was wealthy” was deemed insufficient. Furthermore, there was no additional duty on the claimant to investigate the respondent’s financial circumstances, meaning that Entwistle was not required to dig deeper. This is because there is no duty on the innocent party to verify the other’s disclosures.
As a result, the Court voided the prenuptial agreement, remitting the case for a fresh assessment of Entwistle’s needs under Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Options and remedies when you disagree
What can parties do when the first court decision seems unjust?
- Appeal the decision: Entwistle’s success shows that appeals are viable, especially if there are solid legal grounds such as fraud or misrepresentation. Here, judicial fairness, gender bias arguments, and disclosure failures were persuasive.
- Set-aside or void the prenuptial agreement: If a court finds that a prenuptial agreement hinges on false information or duress, it can be set aside or voided and revert to assessing needs and fairness under the Matrimonial Causes Act, as happened in this case.
- Negotiate a new settlement: Settlement always remains an option. Helliwell had offered £800,000, and Entwistle wanted £2.5 million. With the prenup gone, negotiation options renew, although in reality, realistic valuations of needs and conduct are likely to prevail.
- Prepare for re-assessment in High Court: Once remitted, the High Court must reassess needs without the limiting lens of the prenuptial agreement. This includes factoring in lifestyle, duration of the marriage, and conduct as required by Section 25 of the MCA 1973.
Broader legal significance for prenuptial agreements and family law
Helliwell exemplifies that full disclosure of each other’s finances during the drafting of a prenuptial agreement is not optional. As part of this process, it is also imperative for lawyers drafting prenuptial agreements to treat disclosure clauses as foundational, rather than merely superficial.
Since Radmacher, prenuptial agreements have gained weight with the courts, although this has not yet extended to one of absolute enforceability. The courts will always look for fairness, both at signing the agreement and at the enforcement stage, should it come to it.
Statistics have shown that disputes surrounding prenuptial agreements now represent up to 20% of family law caseloads. This case serves as a cautionary tale. Transparency is an essential element and should not be avoided if you want the court to uphold your prenuptial agreement.
Conclusion
Helliwell v Entwistle is a landmark example illustrating that prenuptial agreements, while increasingly respected, are only as strong as the honesty upon which they rest. Concealing assets not only undermines fairness but can entirely invalidate any contractual protections you hoped to achieve before marrying. When parties believe a court’s initial decision is unfair, particularly in cases tainted by misrepresentation, they can appeal, void flawed agreements, and press for a proper, needs-based financial assessment.
Transparency, reasonableness, and fairness remain the bedrock of sound legal agreements in marriage and separation alike. This case serves as a stern reminder that deception, even of wealth, can unravel the most carefully drafted documents.
Find The Best Divorce & Family Lawyers Near You
We independently review and list the top divorce lawyers and family solicitors in the towns and cities near you. 100% free.
The information on this website is to be considered a guide and is therefore not legal advice. You use this information with the understanding that Wiselaw does not accept liability for any direct or indirect losses as a result of anyone relying on or acting upon the information on this website. Whilst we endeavour to provide accurate information, Wiselaw does not accept liability for any errors or omissions on this website.
