A v Z [2026] EWHC 654 (Fam)

Judgment date: 23 February 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/fam/2026/654

Trowell J. Final hearing in a high net worth financial remedies case concerning the effect of a prenuptial agreement (‘PNA’) on shares transferred to the husband (‘H’) in companies forming part of the wife’s (‘W’) family business group during the marriage.

The court determined the parties’ cross-applications for financial remedies following a 17-year cohabiting relationship, a 2013 marriage, and two children. W came from a very wealthy family and had substantial resources. The parties had entered into a PNA shortly before marriage. It was common ground that the PNA should generally be upheld, but there was a dispute about how it applied to shares in W’s family companies which had been transferred to H during the marriage.

The PNA distinguished between separate property and shared property. Separate property included property owned before marriage and property acquired by gift or inheritance during marriage. Shared property was to be divided equally. The former matrimonial home (‘FMH’), worth £9 million gross with net equity of £8.85 million, had been purchased with funds derived from W but put into joint names. The parties agreed H should receive £4.425m for his half share. They also agreed certain payments under the PNA, including a housing payment and an income payment.

The central issue was whether H should receive value for transferring back to W his shares in W’s family companies, referred to collectively as the E Group. The shares had originally been transferred to him during the marriage and were accepted to be H’s separate property under the PNA. Both parties agreed that, to achieve a clean break, H should transfer his E Group shares to W and W should transfer her shares in H’s company, D Ltd, to him. The dispute was whether that reciprocal transfer should involve payment.

W argued that H should receive no payment for the E Group shares. Her case was that the shares were non-matrimonial property, had been transferred only for tax reasons, were never intended to have independent value in H’s hands on divorce, and were in any event subject to company articles which limited or complicated his ability to realise value. She also argued that H’s needs would be met without payment for the shares.

H argued that the shares were his separate property under the PNA. If he was required to transfer them to W in order to achieve a clean break, he should receive compensatory payment for their value. He sought the discounted minority value of the E Group shares, rather than a pro rata value.

Trowell J held that, although the PNA did not contain an express ‘put option’ or buy-out mechanism, it was premised on each party retaining their separate property and therefore retaining its value. If the court required separate property to be transferred in order to achieve a clean break, it was appropriate to order a compensatory exchange of value.

Trowell J rejected W’s argument that H’s shares were effectively ‘landlocked’ and therefore should not be valued. He considered it highly likely that, if necessary, H could bring company proceedings to extract value where a company failed to issue a transfer notice or failed to negotiate in good faith. The court adopted the discounted minority valuation for H’s E Group shares.

The court also rejected W’s factual case that H had agreed, or understood, that the E Group shares would have no value on divorce. The burden was on W to prove that assertion on the balance of probabilities. It was held that she had not done so. In particular, the company articles did not clearly provide for a nil-value transfer on divorce, H had given indemnities when receiving the shares, and HMRC documents had attributed value to the shares.

The judge accepted, in W’s favour, that the E Group was non-matrimonial property and that, absent the PNA, H would not have had a sharing claim to its value. However, that was not the decisive test. Applying Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, the question was whether it would be unfair to hold the parties to the PNA in the circumstances prevailing. The judge concluded that it would not be unfair to do so.

Trowell J undertook a needs analysis. On a restricted needs basis, reflecting the PNA, H’s needs were assessed at circa £7.867m. On an unrestricted needs basis, without downward pressure from the PNA, his needs were assessed at circa £11.618m. The outcome under the PNA, including payment for the E Group shares, would leave H with approximately £16.233m, although £2.268 million of that related to the uncertain value of D Ltd and its debt to him, and approximately £990,000 was in chattels. Excluding D Ltd and chattels, H would have approximately £12.975m. W would retain approximately £154.713m, before taking account of pensions.

The court ordered that W pay H a total lump sum of £13,000,368, comprising £6,433,100 under the agreed PNA calculations and £6,567,268 as the net amount for the share transfers. H was to transfer his E Group shares to W, W was to transfer her D Ltd shares to H, and H was to transfer his interest in the FMH and most of the chattels to W. A clean break was to be effected.

The judge also gave preliminary views on child periodical payments, indicating that W should pay £49,000 per annum per child, reflecting the PNA, with CPI indexation. He was also minded to order that W meet school fees, reasonable extras and university fees, given the disparity in resources.