In any divorce, transparency is essential. Both parties are legally required to provide a full and honest account of their financial circumstances, including assets, income, debts, and liabilities. This information forms the foundation for decisions around dividing property, setting spousal support, and arranging financial care for children. When one party fails to disclose key financial details, whether by omission or deliberate concealment, it can seriously impact the fairness and finality of the settlement.
Nondisclosure isn’t just frowned upon; it’s a breach of legal duty. If hidden assets or income come to light, courts have the power to reopen agreements, impose financial penalties, or even refer the matter for criminal investigation. A judge may decide to redistribute assets more favorably to the party who acted in good faith or order the dishonest party to pay additional legal costs. In more serious cases, failing to disclose financial information can result in charges such as perjury or contempt of court.
Even after a divorce is finalised, the discovery of nondisclosure can unravel previously agreed terms. This not only prolongs the emotional strain but also adds to the financial cost. For this reason, many divorcing individuals and their lawyers turn to tools like forensic accounting or formal legal discovery to ensure nothing is being hidden.
Recently, a city trader who claimed he was the victim of gender prejudice in a high-profile divorce has won the right to have his settlement reassessed, after it emerged his ex-wife didn’t disclose the majority of her large fortune. Simon Entwistle was originally awarded £325,000 following the breakdown of his three-year marriage to interior designer Jenny Helliwell, despite her family wealth amounting to at least £66 million. Now, after a Court of Appeal ruling, that figure could increase substantially.
The couple married in 2019 with an extravagant ceremony in Paris. They lived a luxurious lifestyle, including in a £4.5 million Dubai villa gifted to Helliwell by her father, prominent businessman Neil Helliwell. But the relationship came to an abrupt end in 2022 when Entwistle was ordered to leave the family home within 48 hours.
The original High Court ruling upheld a prenuptial agreement in which both parties had agreed to retain their assets in the event of a divorce. Based on that agreement, and what was then understood about Helliwell’s finances, the judge awarded Entwistle a relatively modest sum, stating that a short marriage to a wealthy individual did not entitle someone to a life of continued luxury. He also criticised Entwistle’s financial expectations, including a £36,000-a-year flight budget and £26,000 “meal plan,” particularly after Entwistle admitted he “couldn’t even cook an omelette.”
But Entwistle appealed, arguing that the prenup should be voided because Helliwell had deliberately concealed £47.8 million—nearly three-quarters of her wealth—at the time it was signed. He also alleged the original ruling reflected gender bias, noting that a woman in a similar position might have been treated more generously.
The Court of Appeal agreed, at least in part. Lady Justice King ruled that Helliwell’s failure to disclose her full wealth, assets that included business holdings, beachfront land in Dubai, and a £1.6 million London property, was “deliberate” and amounted to fraudulent nondisclosure, declaring the prenuptial agreement invalid.
It was declared that the husband was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed he should have before deciding whether to agree.”
The case will now return to the High Court, where a new financial settlement will be calculated as if the prenuptial agreement had never been in existence.
Despite losing his original case and being left £125,000 out of pocket after legal fees, Entwistle had rejected earlier offers of £500,000 and £800,000 from Helliwell in an attempt to avoid litigation. His legal team argued that, had the roles been reversed, a woman in his position would likely have received a significantly higher award.
While Lady Justice King did not explicitly comment on the alleged gender prejudice, her ruling focused on the material nondisclosure and its legal implications. It remains to be seen what Mr Entwistle will ultimately receive, but with the prenup now set aside, his financial future looks considerably brighter.
Honesty in financial disclosure is a legal necessity and represents the foundation for a fair and lasting process. Attempts to deceive the system often backfire, resulting in harsher rulings and damaged credibility. By being transparent from the start, both parties give themselves the best chance of resolving matters with dignity, fairness, and finality.
