MN v AN
[2023] EWHC 613 (Fam)
Jenny Alzena Helliwell v Simon Graham Entwistle
16 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 740 (Fam)
High Court
A rich wife and her husband divorced after a short marriage. They had a prenuptial agreement saying each keeps their own money. The husband tried to get millions, but the judge said the agreement was mostly fair. He only got a smaller amount to help him for a little while because he was sick and unemployed. The judge was upset that the divorce was so expensive and nasty, saying everyone should try to settle things fairly and quickly.
Key Facts
- •Three-year childless marriage.
- •Wife's assets: approximately £61.5 million (husband claims closer to £74 million).
- •Husband's assets: approximately £850,000 (partially illiquid).
- •Wife's annual income: approximately £600,000 (husband claims closer to £1 million).
- •Husband currently unemployed due to medical reasons.
- •Prenuptial agreement signed on the day of the marriage, stipulating separate property and no claims against each other.
- •Husband's initial claim: £10 million; revised claim: £2.4 million.
- •Wife's costs: £600,000; Husband's costs: £450,000.
- •Wife offered husband £800,000 on 25 September 2023.
Legal Principles
Prenuptial agreements should be given decisive weight unless unfair.
Granatino v Radmacher
The court must avoid sexual or gender discrimination.
Granatino v Radmacher
In assessing needs post-separation, the court considers all circumstances, including the length of the marriage and pre-marital cohabitation.
Section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, RW v GW, VV v VV
The court should place little reliance on witnesses' recollections of conversations, preferring documentary evidence.
Gestmin v Credit Suisse
A lie does not automatically equate to guilt; consider reasons for lying (shame, panic, etc.).
R v Lucas
Outcomes
Prenuptial agreement upheld, with variations to address husband's reasonable needs.
The agreement was freely entered into, despite some issues with disclosure. The husband's needs are addressed through a lump sum payment, acknowledging the husband's limited liquid assets and unemployment.
Husband awarded a lump sum of £400,000.
This accounts for his reasonable needs, including medical treatment, relocation costs, and short-term living expenses in Dubai, while respecting the prenuptial agreement's core principles.
Husband's claims for a property purchase and full legal costs rejected.
These claims were deemed excessive and not warranted given the circumstances of the short, childless marriage and the existence of a prenuptial agreement.