Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1071
Costs, Conduct, and the Collapse of a Prenup
We are often asked about prenuptial agreements, and whether or not they are binding on a couple. These things require careful consideration, and each party obtaining independent legal advice in order for it to be persuasive to a future judge in financial proceedings. This case is about just that scenario.
On 7 August 2025, in the Court of Appeal, Mr Entwistle successfully challenged a Family Court decision that had upheld a pre-nuptial agreement despite serious non-disclosure by Ms Helliwell.
The case highlights the importance of transparency in financial agreements and the court’s power to award indemnity costs in family proceedings.
Background
The couple married in 2019, signing a “drop-hands” prenup that excluded financial claims.
However, Ms Helliwell failed to disclose over £47 million of her assets, omitting nearly three quarters of her true wealth. Despite this, the Family Court upheld the agreement, awarding Mr Entwistle only modest support. He appealed, arguing that the non-disclosure invalidated the agreement.
Court of Appeal
The appeal was allowed.
The Court found that Ms Helliwell’s concealment of assets and obstruction of legal advice amounted to fraud and justified indemnity costs. Her reasons for hiding assets, privacy and tax concerns, were rejected. The Court also criticised her refusal to renegotiate the agreement based on Mr Entwistle’s needs.
Costs Award
The Court ordered:
Ms Helliwell accepted liability for appeal costs but sought standard assessment and delay pending a possible Supreme Court appeal. The Court refused, citing her conduct as exceptional.
Legal Significance
This case reinforces that:
Takeaway
Helliwell v Entwistle is a reminder that honesty and transparency are critical in financial agreements. For lawyers and the public alike, it underscores the risks of concealment and the importance of proper legal advice.
If you need advice on a prenup, we’re here to help, contact us.