UK-wide: A Family/Matrimonial Finance: High Net Worth Overview

The Consultation

The Ministry of Justice's June 2026 consultation, “A fairer end to relationships", has attracted considerable attention in the high net worth (HNW) and ultra-high net worth individual (UHNW) family law sector. The paper identifies general financial remedies law as lacking certainty and accessibility and singles out uncertainty surrounding the enforceability of nuptial agreements because, it says, Radmacher leaves open when and how an agreement will be upheld. It also seeks views on how domestic abuse and other misconduct should be treated in financial remedy cases, with the stated aim of achieving consistency across financial remedy proceedings and the proposed cohabitation framework.

On nuptial agreements, the consultation proposes the introduction of qualifying nuptial agreements (QNAs) as binding agreements. It does not, however, appear to spell out whether non-QNA agreements will continue to operate under Radmacher.

On domestic abuse and conduct, there is a clear tension between the policy objective of no-fault divorce – reducing the need for parties to blame one another – and any reform that encourages wider reliance on conduct in financial remedy proceedings. If the aim is to reduce blame and conflict, expanding reliance on conduct could reintroduce blame through the back door. Parties may no longer need to allege unreasonable behaviour to obtain the divorce, but they may still be incentivised to plead and litigate allegations of bad behaviour where those allegations might affect the financial outcome.

This sits uneasily with the anti-conflict rationale of no-fault divorce, and in particular with what several High Court Family Division judges have said about the toxicity, aggression, damage, destruction and toll affecting everyone involved in recent cases. This also makes a mockery of the much-marketed arguments put forward by many lawyers (and indeed the government) prior to the statute coming into force that no fault divorce would end the “blame game”. It has not ended.

In Lockwood v Greenbaum (2022), Moor J observed:

"The history of the litigation between these parties makes very sad and troubling reading. It has undoubtedly done untold damage to them and to their children… I heard the case on the day on which the new 'no fault' divorce provisions came into force… Whilst extremely welcome, this new law will not end the sort of attritional litigation in relation to ancillary matters, such as financial remedies, seen so vividly in this case, unless the parties recognise that such an approach is entirely destructive, extremely expensive and thoroughly damaging to everyone involved. To date, these parties have not so recognised".

In Crowther v Crowther and Others (2021), Peel J said:

"Each party thinks the other is, to use their own words, 'out to destroy' them. These proceedings have been intensely acrimonious. They, and their lawyers, have adopted a bitterly fought adversarial approach… it seems to me that it has led to vast costs and reduced scope for settlement. The toll on each party is incalculable… and the impact on the children has been highly detrimental".

It remains an open question whether the consultation will be kicked into the long grass by the new prime minister, Andy Burnham.

The Cases

Potanina v Potanin

The saga continues. MacDonald J gave directions in February 2026, setting the case down for hearing in November 2026. Enforcement remains a key issue. Will Potanin prove to be a pyrrhic victory as in the Barclay case? In Barclay, not a penny of the GBP100 million award has been paid: Barclay v Barclay [2021] EWFC 40 (5 May 2021) records that the wife's legal team were paid "some £1.8m" to win that award, and Barclay v Barclay [2023] EWFC 164 (23 August 2023) confirms that "no part of the [£100m] lump sum payments have been made".

The husband in Potanin argued that any award would be unenforceable. Although MacDonald J rejected his arguments as grounds to adjourn, the court parked, rather than resolved, the issue of enforcement.

ED v AP

ED v AP, a judgment of HHJ Hess, is a significant post-Standish trust case, applying Standish to private equity, discretionary trust structures and contingent future interests. The judge adopted the same two-stage discipline: firstly, distinguishing matrimonial from non-matrimonial property; and secondly, starting from equal sharing of matrimonial property while leaving non-matrimonial property with the contributor unless needs or another good reason requires departure. The case confirms that Standish applies to trust-related and contingent interests, including arguments about property, earning capacity, post-separation endeavour, trust expectation and resource.

Helliwell v Entwistle

Helliwell v Entwistle is the leading court of appeal authority of the period on nuptial agreements and non-disclosure. It concerned a "drop-hands" prenuptial agreement under which the husband was to receive no settlement. The court upheld the agreement but awarded him GBP400,000 for needs. It held that the wife had fraudulently failed to disclose 73% of her assets amounting to GBP48 million. The case reinforces disclosure within the Radmacher analysis without changing the law: disclosure and independent advice remain highly desirable rather than absolute preconditions, and party autonomy remains central – but where parties have chosen and recorded a disclosure process, they must comply honestly. As King LJ put it at the hearing (view on YouTube): "You can make choices about how you're going to tackle disclosure. If you decide there's going to be disclosure, then you disclose".

PN v SA

PN v SA is a major first-instance authority on nuptial agreements in a highly toxic case. It concerned a carefully drafted 2021 prenuptial agreement and a later 2023 postnuptial agreement. The 2021 agreement was upheld; the 2023 agreement was not. The distinction was critical: the 2021 agreement was prepared with independent advice, proper drafting, clear recitals, disclosure and an express variation mechanism, whereas the 2023 agreement was materially different and vitiated by undue pressure operating at a visceral level. The case confirms Radmacher's strength where an agreement is properly prepared. Later regret, or concern about tax inefficiency, was not enough; but threats, attempts to keep lawyers away and "doomsday" tax warnings may well deprive a party of real self-determination.

Culligan v Rosemin-Culligan

Culligan is yet another example of “attritional litigation”, with the public dissection of a family's private breakdown showing that the rhetoric of blame continues to permeate family disputes despite the warnings of Moor J and Peel J above. The husband has appealed, and judgment is awaited. At first instance, MacDonald J found the conduct allegations fell well short of the high conduct threshold: the wife had alleged physical and mental effects caused by the husband's behaviour, contending that his sudden departure from the former matrimonial home caused distress, anxiety and confusion, resulting in a GP referral for counselling on account of PTSD symptoms.

The judge was highly critical of both parties. He found that neither was an impressive witness and that both regularly "dissembled". The wife sought anonymisation of the substantive judgment before publication; the husband opposed anonymisation.

Readers should view the appeal hearing on YouTube and watch the wife’s troubled reaction to the husband’s counsel’s submissions about her “dishonesty”. It is an important deterrence case in the last year.

Faraj v Ahmad and others

Faraj is significant for showing the court of appeal using robust procedural control to ensure that a legal services payment order (LSPO) achieves its purpose. The court made a Hadkinson order requiring the husband to pay the GBP120,000 plus VAT LSPO by 2 May 2025, failing which his appeal against the lump sum order would be dismissed without further order. It found that his failure to pay amounted to a deliberate and continuing contempt of court impeding the course of justice.

Michael v Michael

Michael v Michael (No 1) and (No 3) add a sharper trust dimension. The court found that an offshore structure presented as a trust was a sham: the documents were a cover story, and the husband was the true beneficial owner. Sham trust allegations remain exceptional and difficult to prove, but the Family Court will examine substance where the evidence justifies it. Practitioners must distinguish between a valid discretionary trust, a trust whose assets may be a resource and a true sham.

Evans v Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd

Evans addresses when solicitors may have to advise on a possible claim arising from their own earlier alleged negligence. The duty is not confined to latent negligence discovered later; it may arise where, during the retainer, the solicitor knows, or ought to know, of a significant risk that earlier advice or conduct was negligent.