The former couple had reached an agreement in relation to their finances on divorce in August 2020, each obtaining separate legal advice. This had been converted into a Court Order in August 2022, meaning that the agreement was intended to be final and legally binding.
In the years since the agreement was finalised, the husband’s wealth had grown significantly, to at least £32 million. In 2025, the wife applied to set aside the original Court Order. She claimed that the husband had placed her under undue pressure and that there was non-disclosure on his part. The husband disagreed, asserting that the original agreement was a fair reflection of the family’s financial position at that time.
Advised by Mishcon de Reya, the wife applied to set aside the original Court Order and her case was heard by a High Court Judge. The husband was represented by Daniel Coombes, Grace Lawrence and Jaanki Shah of Family Law in Partnership, who instructed specialist barristers, Tim Bishop KC of 1 Hare Court and Sophie Connors of 1KBW.
Outcome:
Following the trial in the High Court, Mr Justice Garrido dismissed the wife’s claim and upheld the Court Order made in 2022. He rejected the wife’s suggestion that the husband had placed undue pressure on her in order to procure the agreement, or that there was non-disclosure on his part. In fact, Mr Justice Garrido noted that “the contemporaneous evidence taken as a whole shows that [the husband] behaved at all times with sensitivity and decency”.
Significance:
This verdict is important because it emphasises the finality of court orders and serves as a reminder that in the absence of a narrow set of factors, people will generally be held to the agreements they reach, allowing them to move forward with certainty.
For further information please refer to the reported case of W v H [2025] EWFC 528.
