The Court of Appeal's decision in Helliwell v Entwistle [2024] EWCA Civ 1503 has brought prenuptial agreements firmly back into the headlines — and serves as a sharp reminder that they stand or fall on the foundation of complete honesty.
The case concerned Simon Entwistle, a former City trader, and Jenny Helliwell, a wealthy heiress. On their wedding day in 2019, they signed a "drop-hands" prenuptial agreement. The terms meant each would retain what they brought into the marriage and make no claims against the other's assets. Mr Entwistle would receive £500,000 if the marriage ended.
The problem was that Ms Helliwell's financial disclosure bore little resemblance to the truth. She stated her assets to be in the region of £18–23 million. In reality, her wealth was closer to £66 million — and possibly exceeded £70 million — with significant business holdings and a share in a Wimbledon property left undisclosed.
When the marriage broke down after three years, the High Court upheld the agreement and awarded Mr Entwistle £400,000, later reduced to £325,000 after costs. On appeal, Lady Justice King found that the deliberate concealment of almost three-quarters of the wife's assets amounted to "fraudulent" non-disclosure, which undermined the very basis of the agreement. The case was sent back to the High Court for a fresh assessment of Mr Entwistle's financial needs, without the invalid prenup influencing the outcome.
This judgment follows the principles set out in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed that nuptial agreements can carry decisive weight if they are freely entered into, with full understanding, and without factors that make them unfair. The courts apply a two-stage test: first, to determine whether there are any vitiating factors such as fraud, duress, or misrepresentation; and second, if there are none, to decide whether it is fair to hold the parties to the agreement. In Helliwell, the agreement failed at the very first stage.
Prenuptial agreements have travelled a long way in England and Wales over the last fifteen years. Before Radmacher, they were rarely upheld, seen as contrary to public policy. Since then, they have become increasingly common, particularly among professionals, business owners, and couples entering marriage later in life. Postnuptial agreements have also gained ground, offering a way to set terms after the wedding or to update an earlier arrangement. But in both cases, the essential requirements remain the same: full disclosure, independent legal advice for both parties, fairness, and enough time for careful consideration.
As Alun Jones, Solicitor at Alun Jones Family Law, explains:
"A nuptial agreement is not just about the signatures on the page. It is about trust and transparency. Without that, no matter how carefully drafted the document is, it can unravel quickly."
Hannah Newberry, Solicitor at the firm, adds:
"We are seeing more and more clients seeking the protection of prenups and postnups. The Helliwell case shows that honesty is the non-negotiable starting point. Agreements built on anything less are at risk from the outset."
For anyone considering a nuptial agreement, the lesson from Helliwell is clear: disclose everything, seek early advice, and give both parties time to consider the terms. Done properly, a prenup or postnup can offer certainty and protection for both sides. Done badly, it may not survive the first legal challenge.
If you would like specialist advice on prenuptial or postnuptial agreements, contact Alun Jones Family Law on 02920 023 222 or email
