Entwistle (Respondent) v Helliwell (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0163

Parties

Appellant(s)

Jenny Helliwell

Respondent(s)

Simon Entwistle

Issue

(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with the trial judge’s factual findings by substituting its own finding that the appellant had made a deliberate decision not to disclose the full extent of her assets? (2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the appellant’s omission to fully disclose her assets amounted to fraudulent non-disclosure? (3) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that the non-disclosure was material to the respondent’s decision to enter the pre-nuptial agreement, and that the agreement was therefore vitiated?

Facts

The appellant wife and respondent husband married on 12 July 2019. On the day of the wedding, before the marriage, they entered into a ‘drop hands’ pre-nuptial agreement (“PNA”). The PNA provided that in the event of a divorce, each party would take out the assets which they had brought into the marriage, and would divide equally any assets which they acquired (or came to own jointly) during the course of the marriage. The PNA stated that the parties had “fully and frankly disclosed to each other their financial resources and liabilities which are set out in summary form in Appendices A, B, C, D and E to this Agreement.” Appendix A related to the separate assets of the wife, defined by the PNA as “any and all property of any nature owned directly or indirectly by [her] on the date of its execution.” The wife did not disclose within Appendix A any of her business assets, or her 50% interest in a house in Wimbledon. The Court of Appeal estimated that the undisclosed assets amounted to approximately 73% of her wealth. By September 2021, the marriage (which was childless) was in difficulties. On 8 September 2022, the wife applied for divorce. Financial remedy proceedings followed. The first instance judge in those proceedings (Francis J) found that the PNA was valid and gave effect to it, subject to an order that (out of fairness) the wife should make a lump sum payment of £400,000 to the husband in order to satisfy his assessed needs. The husband appealed Francis J’s decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that Francis J had been wrong to conclude that the wife had not deliberately concealed the extent of her assets. The Court of Appeal found that she had deliberately failed to disclose the majority of her wealth, and that this deliberate non-disclosure was material to the husband’s decision to agree to the PNA. The Court of Appeal therefore found that the PNA was vitiated, and did not give effect to it. The Court of Appeal remitted the case to the High Court for a re-assessment of the husband’s needs. The wife now appeals to the Supreme Court. She argues (1) that the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with the factual findings made by Francis J, (2) that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that there had been fraudulent non-disclosure, and (3) that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the non-disclosure was material to the husband’s decision to enter the agreement.