Family Law Insights: Court Upholds Deed Revoking Pre-Nuptial Agreement in £20 Million Divorce

Maisie Beavan, Trainee Solicitor

Maisie handles a variety of cases, including personal injury, discrimination claims in employment and higher education, historical child sexual abuse claims, and commercial and property matters for private clients. She is currently studying the LPC and plans to qualify as a solicitor in 2026.

In a recent Family Court decision in FO v PN [2025] EWFC 327 (B), His Honour Judge Hess upheld a deed of revocation that revoked a 2012 pre-nuptial agreement between wife and husband, resulting in an equal division of marital assets worth approximately £20 million.

The couple, who married in 2012 and have two children, had originally signed a pre-nuptial agreement shortly before marriage. It provided that most assets belonging to the husband would remain his “separate property” – the effect of the pre-nuptial agreement was to give the husband an unequal share of the assets to reflect his substantial wealth that he brought into the marriage. Wife believed husband was the sole owner of a property and that she was to receive half of that property under the pre-nuptial agreement, however, in June 2012, wife learned that husband owned 1% of a property, rather than the sole owner. Husband had allegedly failed to disclose this position of shared ownership. Over time, the wife became very unhappy about the issue of husband’s misleading disclosure, and she felt the pre-nuptial agreement terms were then unfair. She then requested a deed of revocation to seek an equal division of the assets. In April 2022, following the receipt of legal advice, the parties signed a deed of revocation, agreeing to revoke the pre-nuptial agreement and divide all assets equally in the event of divorce. In 2023, the wife issued divorce proceedings.

During the financial proceedings, the husband argued that the deed of revocation should be disregarded. He claimed it had been signed under undue pressure, manipulated by the wife, and that she had always intended to end the marriage after securing better financial terms. He sought to fall back on the original pre-nuptial agreement or, alternatively, a needs-based approach that would give the wife just over £6 million.

The court firmly rejected the husband’s claims. It found that both parties had received independent legal advice and that the husband – an experienced businessman – had understood the deed of revocation’s implications and could have refused to enter into the deed of revocation if he wished. There was no evidence of coercion, misrepresentation, or bad faith by the wife, whom the judge described as a credible witness who genuinely hoped the marriage would survive.

Applying Radmacher v Granatino, the court emphasised the importance of upholding agreements freely entered into and found the deed of revocation to be a “magnetic factor” in determining the financial outcome. The wife was awarded just under £10 million, including a share of investment portfolios and two properties. The husband retained the former matrimonial home.

A clean break was ordered in respect of spousal maintenance. The husband was also ordered to pay £100,000 towards the wife’s legal costs, due to his unreasonable stance in challenging the deed of revocation and pursuing baseless allegations.

This case highlights the fact that courts will give weight to pre-nuptial agreements and deeds of revocation, where those agreements abide by the Radmacher principles, even if the marriage ends shortly afterwards.