CA-2024-000509 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1055

This is an appeal by the appellant husband Simon Entwistle (‘the husband’) against the making of a final order in financial remedy proceedings by Francis J (‘the judge’) on 15 March 2024. The judge decided to give effect to a so-called ‘drop hands’ pre-nuptial agreement (‘the agreement’), which had been entered into by the husband and his former wife Jenny Helliwell (‘the wife’). Under the terms of the agreement, the husband was to receive no settlement upon divorce. The judge determined, however, that fairness required that a lump sum order of £400,000 should be paid to the husband in order to satisfy his assessed needs.

The husband appeals both the judge’s decision to uphold the agreement and his subsequent assessment of his needs.

For the reasons given in this judgment I would allow the appeal against the determination that the agreement be given effect as, in my judgment, the judge erred in law in concluding that on the facts of the case, the wife’s deliberate non-disclosure, on current figures, of some 73% of her wealth did not serve to vitiate the agreement.

The validity or otherwise of the agreement has an impact upon the assessment of the needs of the husband (see [12] below). In the light of my conclusion that the agreement should not be given effect, there must be a reconsideration of the husband’s needs and in particular his housing provision. This court is not in a position to carry out such an assessment and the matter will therefore be remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the husband’s needs.

Further litigation is not an outcome that either party would have wanted, but it is to be hoped that notwithstanding the unfortunate way the litigation has been conducted by the parties to date, that, even now, agreement can be reached without the necessity of a further distressing hearing.