The Importance of being honest when entering into Pre-Nuptial Agreements
Introduction to Pre-Nuptial Agreements
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 is a powerful reminder that full and frank disclosure is the cornerstone of any pre-nuptial agreements.
In this case, a “drop hands” pre-nuptial agreement, signed on the day of the wedding, was set aside after the court found the wife had deliberately concealed the majority of her wealth, amounting to more than £47 million.
Pre-Nuptial Agreements Background
The parties signed a prenuptial agreement on their wedding day. The key terms were:
- Each would retain their own assets.
- Neither would make financial claims against the other upon divorce.
This type of arrangement is often called a “drop hands” agreement, meaning both parties walk away with what they brought into the marriage.
Despite this, when the marriage broke down, the High Court awarded the husband £400,000 to meet his needs.
The wife’s position rested on the validity of the prenup, but the husband challenged the order, alleging:
- Material non-disclosure of assets.
- Undue pressure in signing the agreement.
- Inadequate assessment of his needs.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal sided with the husband, allowing the appeal and making several important findings:
- The wife had deliberately failed to disclose approximately 73% of her total wealth, over £47 million, despite giving express assurances in the agreement that full disclosure had been made.
- This was fraudulent non-disclosure, a clear breach of the agreement’s terms and the legal duty of honesty.
- In line with Radmacher and Sharland, such concealment invalidates a nuptial agreement.
- Where parties have agreed to disclosure, wilful concealment of material assets undermines the agreement’s validity.
As a result, the case was remitted to the High Court for a fresh assessment of the husband’s needs under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, with no reliance on the invalidated pre-nuptial agreement.
Legal Principles Reinforced
This case reinforces several key points in family law:
- Full and Frank Disclosure Is Essential
Courts will not uphold a prenuptial agreement where one party knowingly hides significant assets. - Timing and Pressure Matter
Although the Court did not base its decision solely on undue pressure, signing an agreement on the day of the wedding can be a red flag. - Fraud Vitiates Consent
Following Sharland, fraud in disclosure means the court cannot rely on the agreement as a fair reflection of the parties’ intentions. - Section 25 MCA 1973 Takes Priority
When an agreement is set aside, the court reverts to its statutory duty: assessing needs, sharing, and fairness under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Practical Takeaways for Couples
- Plan early — Start discussions about prenuptial agreements well before the wedding.
- Be transparent — Concealing assets is likely to destroy the agreement and could harm credibility.
- Use independent legal advice — Both parties should have separate solicitors.
- Record disclosure — Ensure all asset schedules are clear, accurate, and agreed upon.
Conclusion
Helliwell v Entwistle is a landmark reminder that honesty is non-negotiable in prenuptial agreements.
For high-net-worth individuals especially, the case demonstrates that even watertight agreements on paper can unravel entirely if they are built on incomplete or misleading disclosure.
If you are considering a prenuptial agreement or facing a dispute over one, our team can help. Contact us today for your free 30 minute consultation.