The Prenup That Leaked: Entwistle v Helliwell Explained

For financial remedy lawyers, life’s certainties are death, taxes, and discovering assets the other side swore blind didn’t exist. The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Entwistle v Helliwell [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 is a timely reminder that, with pre-nuptial agreements, disclosure isn’t just a polite formality, it’s the concrete slab the whole thing rests on. Miss out 73% of your assets and, as the wife here discovered, your ‘bulletproof’ prenup can transform into something more akin to a colander.

The facts in brief

Mr Entwistle (husband) and Ms Helliwell (wife) married in 2019 after a short courtship and cohabitation. The wife came from a family of considerable wealth, her father’s business empire spanned continents, and she personally held assets worth between £60–70 million. The husband, a qualified accountant, had assets of around £850,000.

On the day of their wedding in the Seychelles, they signed a ‘drop-hands’ pre-nuptial agreement: each would keep what they brought into the marriage, jointly owned property would be split 50/50, and neither would claim from the other. It contained explicit recitals that both had given ‘full and frank’ disclosure in appended asset schedules.

Except, of course, they hadn’t. The wife’s appendix showed disclosed assets of roughly £18m. Missing was a cool £47.8m in business and property assets, 73% of her true worth, deliberately excluded for reasons including ‘privacy’, ‘tax concerns’ and the belief that her father’s assets were not really hers. Unfortunately for her, the legal title said otherwise.

The High Court (Francis J) upheld the agreement, finding the husband knew she was wealthy and had taken advice. He awarded him £400,000 for two years’ rental and some income, firmly rejecting the idea the omission vitiated the agreement.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal (King, Moylan, Snowden LJJ) allowed the appeal.

Why the agreement failed

The inevitable starting point, necessary to consider, was the Supreme Court’s decision in Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42 (‘Radmacher’). At para 71, Lord Phillips, having referred to Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410, envisaged that the starting point for the first stage of his analysis required the application of conventional legal principles under which duress, fraud or misrepresentation can result in an agreement being of no legal effect: ‘the standard vitiating factors’. He went on to say:

‘75. The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.’

The judgment’s critical finding in Entwistle was that the wife’s non-disclosure was fraudulent. She knew the omitted assets were legally hers, had discussed them with her father, and consciously chose not to list them in Appendix A despite the agreement’s explicit wording. This wasn’t rounding down a share price, this was wholesale exclusion of tens of millions.

The court drew heavily on Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, Cummings v Fawn [2023] EWHC 830 (Fam), and Takhar v Gracefield [2019] UKSC 13: fraudulent non-disclosure creates a strong presumption that the misrepresentation was material, and the burden lies on the wrongdoer to prove otherwise. That bar is high. The wife failed to clear it.

The agreement’s own terms sealed her fate:

• Recital (R): both had fully and frankly disclosed their financial resources.
• Recital (S): disclosure was substantially complete in all material respects.

These were representations of fact, not fluffy preamble. By signing them knowing they were false, she committed what Mostyn J in Cathcart v Owens called a ‘species or subset of fraud’.

Vitiating factors before fairness

The Court of Appeal emphasised the Radmacher v Granatino two-stage approach:

• Stage 1: Are there vitiating factors (duress, fraud, misrepresentation, undue pressure) which eliminate or reduce the weight of the agreement?
• Stage 2: If not vitiated, would it be fair to hold the parties to it?

Francis J had largely skipped Stage 1, treating disclosure as a ‘gold standard’ rather than a contractual commitment; [63].

Key learning points for practitioners

Disclosure clauses have teeth: If the prenup contains an express representation of ‘full and frank’ disclosure, any deliberate omission is perilous. It turns a mere shortfall into a fraudulent misrepresentation, triggering Sharland principles.

Fraud flips the burden: In cases of fraudulent non-disclosure, the burden shifts to the perpetrator to prove, with clear and cogent evidence, that the truth would have made no difference to the other party’s decision. A shrug and ‘but they knew I was rich’ will not do.

Stage 1 is not optional: Courts must engage with Stage 1 of Radmacher. If a prenup is tainted by fraud, undue pressure, or misrepresentation, it should be set aside before fairness is even considered.

Email trails matter: Here, the infamous ‘copy-and-paste’ email – drafted by the wife suggesting no disclosure at all – was damning. Practitioners should preserve all pre-signature correspondence: it can make or break the vitiation argument.

Advice must follow disclosure: The husband’s only legal advice came before he saw any asset figures. The agreement then proceeded without his lawyer’s involvement in reviewing the disclosure. Best practice is that each party’s legal advice should be based on the actual disclosed figures.

Short Marriage ≠ Free Pass: Even in a short, childless marriage with vast pre-marital wealth, fraud can undo a prenup. The Radmacher ‘indifference to particulars’ principle applies only where there has been no misrepresentation.

Practical tips for drafting and litigating prenups

• Insist on complete asset schedules: blank appendices are litigation grenades. If values are approximate, say so expressly and record the basis.
• No waiver of disclosure: the law commission recommends parties cannot waive disclosure. The recommended qnas [sic] be invalid if made less than 28 days in advance of the marriage or civil partnership. If a waiver is insisted upon, spell out its risks in writing.
• Chronology is king: when challenging or defending, set out the timeline of drafts, meetings, emails and advice. This was missing at first instance here and cost the wife dearly.
• Advise on worst-case scenarios: as Ms Klyne did here. If a client is ‘comfortable’ with that, record it. But ensure it’s comfort based on fact, not fantasy.
• Watch for dominant third parties: parental influence can shade into undue pressure, particularly if linked to signing on the wedding day. Flag it.
• Remember the mediation clauses: this agreement required disputes to go to mediation first. Compliance might not save a bad prenup, but breach can undermine the party in breach.

What happens next

The Court of Appeal set aside the order upholding the prenup and remitted the case for a full reassessment of the husband’s needs. With the agreement gone, the court will apply the s 25 MCA 1973 factors afresh, particularly housing – in light of the wife’s true wealth.

The decision doesn’t make prenups less enforceable per se. It does, however, underline that the Radmacher autonomy principle is conditional on honesty. A prenup is not a licence to fib.

A few cautionary quips

• ‘Full and frank disclosure’ is not, as some clients imagine, a polite suggestion like ‘black tie optional’. It’s mandatory.
• If your client’s asset schedule leaves out more than it includes, be prepared for the Court of Appeal to notice – even if the first instance judge doesn’t.
• ‘I thought they were really my father’s assets’ is not a recognised exception in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
• And finally, if the prenup is signed on the wedding day, in the Seychelles, without the full appendices reviewed by your client’s solicitor – expect trouble. Sun, sea, and sand do not neutralise vitiating factors.

Conclusion

Entwistle v Helliwell is a sharp reminder that when it comes to nuptial agreements, fraud is fatal. The case reinforces that Stage 1 of Radmacher is not a mere preamble but a vital filter: if the agreement is procured by misrepresentation, it falls.

For practitioners, the lessons are straightforward: nail down disclosure, document advice post-disclosure, beware dominant family members, and always keep the paper trail. Or, as this case shows, the only thing shorter than the marriage may be the lifespan of the prenup.