Heirress ex-wife's city trader husband successfully overturns divorce decision, citing gender bias, as he was only left with £325,000 from her £61.5MILLION fortune.
Simon Entwistle, a financial trader, has won his divorce appeal against wealthy heiress Jenny Helliwell, who was accused of engaging in 'fraudulent' behavior by not declaring almost £48 million of her personal fortune during a prenuptial agreement.
The dispute centres around whether Helliwell's failure to disclose the majority of her wealth should invalidate the pre-nuptial agreement. The pre-nuptial agreement, signed on July 12, 2019, stipulated that each party would retain their own separate property and split any jointly owned property equally upon divorce.
Lady Justice King, who presided over the appeal, made no finding on the gender prejudice argument but acknowledged that Helliwell failed to disclose £47,878,800 of assets, including almost £40 million worth of business assets, £8 million worth of beachfront land in Dubai, and a £1,649,000 house in Wimbledon.
The original divorce award to Entwistle was £400,000, but it was reduced to £325,000 after a deduction for Helliwell's costs. However, the court has ordered the case to be recalculated as if the pre-nuptial agreement did not exist.
The non-disclosure of significant assets during prenuptial agreement negotiations is not uncommon, but it presents serious legal risks. Courts often require "fair and reasonable disclosure" of each party's assets and liabilities for a prenup to be enforceable. If a party fails to disclose significant assets, the other party can argue the agreement was signed without informed consent, leading to its invalidation or partial overturn.
In this case, Helliwell's deliberate non-disclosure of her assets was at the heart of the dispute. The judge criticized Entwistle's budget of needs, finding it 'aspirational' and including an 'astonishing' claim for £36,000 a year for flights and £26,000 a year for a meal plan. However, the judge's ruling has been widely criticized for its perceived gender bias, with Entwistle's barrister arguing that had the roles been reversed, a higher award would have been given to a wife.
The legal implications vary by jurisdiction, but generally include the invalidation or challenge of the prenup, claims of unconscionability or fraud, and the burden of proof on the nondisclosing party. Most jurisdictions expect a detailed overview of assets, debts, income, and potential inheritances. Comprehensive and documented disclosure strengthens enforceability and reduces challenges.
In summary, while some degree of non-disclosure happens, it usually undermines the reliability and legal standing of prenuptial agreements. Courts prioritize full, fair disclosure to ensure voluntary and informed consent, and failure to disclose significant assets risks costly legal consequences, including loss of protections the prenup is meant to provide.
The case of Simon Entwistle and Jenny Helliwell serves as a reminder of the importance of full disclosure in prenuptial agreement negotiations.
References:
- BBC News
- Family Law Week
- The Telegraph
- The Guardian
- The Times
- In the realm of general-news, the dispute between financial trader Simon Entwistle and wealthy heiress Jenny Helliwell over their prenuptial agreement has been a topic of discussion, given Helliwell's failure to disclose substantial assets.
- The BBC News, Family Law Week, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Times have all reported on this case, highlighting the importance of full and fair disclosure during prenuptial agreement negotiations, as seen in the Helliwell-Entwistle case.
- A remarkable point arising from this case is the implications it has on lifestyle, business, and finance sectors, as the court's ruling emphasizes the significance of comprehensive disclosure in prenuptial agreements.
