A recent, headline-grabbing divorce settlement — valued at over £230 million — has served as more than just tabloid fodder. Ranking as the third-highest financial award in English divorce history, the case shines a spotlight on the fragile legal footing of post-nuptial agreements, especially when one party exerts dominance over the other.

The couple had been married for two decades before a post-nuptial agreement was drawn up in 2023. Heavily skewed in the husband’s favour, the terms were presumed by him to be enforceable. Yet, the judge took a very different stance. It was found that the agreement had not been reached freely, but rather under undue influence, involving manipulative tactics designed to compromise the wife’s independence and her relationship with her legal team.

In particular, the court highlighted the husband’s deliberate attempts to disrupt his wife’s trust in her solicitor — a move that ultimately undermined any claim that the agreement had been reached with informed consent. That conduct proved costly in more ways than one.

This ruling reinforces a long-standing legal principle: any financial agreement, no matter how meticulously drafted, must be rooted in fairness and autonomy. If either party resorts to coercion, subtle intimidation or emotional manipulation, the validity of that agreement is severely weakened — regardless of wealth, status or the presence of legal formalities.

In high-value cases, it’s not unusual for the wealthier party to attempt to direct the terms of a post-nup to suit their own interests. Often this takes the form of dismissive remarks about lawyers, suggestions that legal costs are a waste of shared resources, or insinuations that disagreement will cause unnecessary conflict. These comments, while not always overt threats, can significantly deter the other party from seeking legal guidance or asserting their position.

Identifying coercion isn’t always straightforward. A spouse unfamiliar with the legal system — or whose first language isn’t English — may not easily recognise when pressure is being applied. But experienced family lawyers are adept at looking beneath the surface to assess whether a client has been able to give free and informed consent.

The family courts are highly attuned to power dynamics in relationships, particularly where wealth disparity exists. If there’s evidence that a person’s autonomy was compromised during the drafting or signing of a post-nup, the agreement may carry little, if any, legal weight — even if it appears watertight on paper. The judiciary is guided not by affluence but by equity.

That said, it is entirely possible for a spouse to voluntarily agree to a financial arrangement that is not to their advantage. But if that agreement is later brought before a judge — particularly in the form of a consent order — the court will expect clear evidence that the individual understood the terms and accepted them of their own free will.

It’s worth remembering that post-nuptial agreements are not automatically binding under English law. They are, however, increasingly influential — particularly where they meet established legal criteria and are entered into freely, with appropriate advice. In the recent case, the judge pointed out that, had both parties been advised independently and thoroughly, the court would have been unlikely to interfere with the outcome.

So, what constitutes a well-formed and credible post-nup?

At a minimum, both individuals should provide full disclosure of their financial circumstances, including income, assets and liabilities. The agreement should be in writing and must be signed without any hint of pressure or manipulation. Legal advice — ideally from separate, specialist solicitors for each party — is essential. Collaborative law and mediation processes can also help ensure that discussions are conducted in a respectful, transparent way.

A frequent tactic in contentious divorces is to question the motives or integrity of lawyers. Ironically, in this instance, the husband’s deliberate undermining of his wife’s legal advice ultimately led to a far more expensive process — with total costs estimated around £5.5 million. A more open, cooperative approach from the start might have avoided that entirely.

Ultimately, this case sends a clear message: no amount of money can shield an individual from judicial scrutiny. The courts remain focused on fairness above all else. When entering any kind of post-nuptial arrangement, respect for the process — and for the other person’s autonomy — isn’t just the decent thing to do. It’s also the most effective way to ensure your agreement stands the test of time.

Lucy Theobald is a Director at The Family Law Company.