Royal Courts of Justice Decision on Costs in Entwistle Divorce: Husband Ordered to Pay £75,000 EWHC 1298

In the case [2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)

the Royal Courts of Justice ruled on a contentious divorce settlement involving a prenuptial agreement. Mr. Justice Francis ordered Simon Graham Entwistle to pay £75,000 towards the legal costs of his wife, Jenny Alzena Helliwell. The court found that the husband's unrealistic financial claims and refusal to settle led to unnecessary litigation costs. The judgment emphasizes that litigants cannot pursue costly legal battles without facing financial consequences, particularly in cases where one party has significantly greater wealth.

Case Overview:

Case Name: Jenny Alzena Helliwell v. Simon Graham Entwistle

Court: Royal Courts of Justice, Family Division

Neutral Citation: [2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)

Judgment Date: 20 March 2024

Judge: Mr. Justice Francis

Legal Issues:

1. Enforcement of Prenuptial Agreement: Whether the prenuptial agreement between the parties should be upheld, including its provision for the application of English law.

2. Costs Allocation in Divorce Proceedings: The appropriate allocation of legal costs in a high-value divorce, considering the conduct of both parties and the financial disparity between them.

3. Reasonableness of Financial Claims: Assessment of the husband's financial claims, which were significantly reduced during negotiations, and their impact on the overall litigation costs.

Court's Analysis:

The court analyzed the unreasonable positions taken by both parties during the divorce proceedings, particularly the husband's inflated financial demands. Despite the prenuptial agreement stating he would receive nothing, the husband initially sought £10 million, which he later reduced to £2.5 million. The wife’s offer of £500,000, made after a private FDR, was deemed reasonable, but the husband's refusal to accept it led to further unnecessary legal expenses.

Judgment Summary:

• Costs Order Against Husband: The husband was ordered to pay £75,000 towards the wife's legal costs, which will be deducted from the final settlement.

• Reinforcement of Financial Responsibility: The judgment reinforces the principle that parties must negotiate realistically and bear the financial consequences of protracted litigation.

• Impact on Financial Needs Assessment: The court acknowledged that this costs order would affect the husband's financial position but deemed it necessary to uphold fairness and discourage frivolous litigation.

This judgment highlights the court's approach to cost allocation in divorce cases involving prenuptial agreements and significant financial disparity between the parties.