Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 (31 July 2025)

Helliwell v Entwistle [2025] EWCA Civ 1055 (31 July 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law by failing to give proper weight to the wife's deliberate and material non-disclosure of her assets, which amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and vitiated the pre-nuptial agreement. The agreement could not be upheld, and the assessment of the husband's needs must be reconsidered in light of the invalidity of the agreement.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1055
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jenny Alzena Helliwell; Defendant/appellant: Simon Graham Entwistle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (financial Remedy Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed. The order upholding the pre-nuptial agreement is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the husband's needs.
Legal Topics
Pre Nuptial Agreements, Financial Remedies, Non Disclosure, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Needs Assessment
Family Law Pre Nuptial Agreements Financial Remedies Non Disclosure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Needs Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenny Alzena Helliwell

Claimant/respondent

Simon Graham Entwistle

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (financial Remedy Proceedings) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Family Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deliberate non-disclosure of assets by the wife vitiated the pre-nuptial agreement
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in law by upholding the agreement despite material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the assessment of the husband's needs was correct in light of the invalidity of the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in law by failing to give proper weight to the wife's deliberate and material non-disclosure of her assets, which amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and vitiated the pre-nuptial agreement. The agreement could not be upheld, and the assessment of the husband's needs must be reconsidered in light of the invalidity of the agreement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. The order upholding the pre-nuptial agreement is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration of the husband's needs.

Orders

  • The pre-nuptial agreement is not to be given effect.
  • The assessment of the husband's needs, including housing provision, is to be reconsidered by the High Court.