A trader whose divorce requirements include £ 26,000 for a personalized meal plan because he 'could not even cook an omelette' is attractive to a larger part of the £ 61.5 million fortune of his wife based on the fact that a woman would have been treated differently.
The 'painful' separation of Simon Entwistle of heirs Jenny Helliwell culminated with a price in his advantage of only £ 400,000, £ 2.1 million fewer than he originally claimed.
That amount was reduced to £ 325,000 after a deduction for the costs of Mrs. Helliwell after a divorce judge said that the three -year marriage was not entitled to maintain a lush lifestyle once the relationship ended.
In view of the fact that his own costs were £ 450,000, the prize left Mr Entwistle £ 125,000 from his own pocket – a scenario that his lawyer would not have argued now, their roles would be reversed.
“The judge was warned about the prejudice of the gender, but failed to pay attention to that warning,” said Deborah Bangay KC, who challenged the original ruling to the Court of Appeal in London.
“If the positions are reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have … so indiscriminate the needs of a woman after a six -year relationship.”
She also accused the wife of the use of 'unconscious pressure … and exploitation of a dominant position' to allow the spouse to sign a pre-marriage agreement that protected her millions, 'established on the appointment of the woman and signed on the day of the wedding.'
The side argued that Mrs. Helliwell had made the pre-marriage agreement by refusing 'any form of mediation in entertaining'.
The 'painful' separation of Simon Entwistle of Mrs. Helliwell culminated with a price in his favor of £ 400,000, £ 2.1 million fewer than he originally claimed
Lawyers for Mr. Entwistle have now appealed to the Royal Courts of Justice in London and claim that he is the victim of gender proponents
“Instead of mediation, the woman gave threats of the greatest gravity to force the removal of the man from the parental home by the authorities of Dubai if he did not leave,” she said.
She added that the initial financial disclosure of Mrs. Helliwell of £ 23 million in assets 'coarse deficiency', which only represented about a third of her true net value and argued that the court had not failed to “be admitted violations of disclosure and the pre-wedding agreement when making the allocation.
Lawyers for Mrs. Helliwell, who originally offered her former spouse an extrajudicial regulation of the first £ 500,000 and then £ 800,000, claimed that the judge of the Supreme Court had in fact been 'generous for him'.
Mr. Justice Francis explained his decision to allocate the full £ 2.5 million that Mr Entwistle claimed at that time and acknowledged Mr Justice Francis that the spouse would be omitted from his own pocket.
“The parties have undergone this painful lawsuit and the spouse is actually worse than he would have been if he would never have filed a claim in the first place, which is tragic for everyone,” the judge said.
He nevertheless refused to increase the price, in which he burned the professing needs of Mr Entwistle 'ambitious'. These needs include an 'amazing' claim for £ 36,000 a year for flights and £ 26,000 a year 'on a meal plan only for themselves'.
“He said to me,” I can't even cook an omelette, “the judge said. “Well, my answer is:” Learn. “It's not difficult.
“You don't have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well.”
Mr. Entwistle, whose £ 2.5 million partition claim £ 26,000 included for 'a meal plan for himself', the original hearing told that he 'could not even cook an omelet'
He added: “Be married for three years to a rich person, you don't suddenly in the right to live like that after the relationship ends.”
During the original hearing last January, Mr. Entwistle's personal assets were estimated to be about £ 850,000 – a fraction of his wife's wealth, so that she could enjoy a 'lush standard of living' after their relationship began in 2016.
He claimed as proof during the original process of the Supreme Court that he, despite signing marital conditions, believed that it was a 'Tick-Box exercise to keep father aside' instead of a serious document.
'During this pre-nup process, [I understood] I was now a Helliwell, “he said. “We are multimillionaries, we do not elevate people to a lifestyle and then when we are fed up … Only because you don't have the feeling that you want a relationship, just drop them and leave them with nothing.”
In summary in the Court of Appeal, his lawyer said: “The judge considered inequality in resources, the duration of the relationship, the contribution of the spouse to the marriage and the standard of living of the parties.
“If he had done that, he would not have left the husband in a worse position than before he brought the case, because the costs were £ 450,000 and he received £ 325,000.”
The relationship between the former couple, who are both 42, started in 2016.
After a lush wedding of £ 500,000 in Paris in August 2019, Mr Entwistle 'enjoyed the attributes of being married in a family of exceptional wealth,' lived in a £ 4.5 million villa in Dubai in Dubai donated to Mrs. Helliwell, well -to -do businessman Neil Helliwell.
However, he was ordered from the parental home with a notice period of 48 hours in August 2022 after the relationship had reached the rocks. Mr. Entwistle, originally from Bolton, claimed £ 2.5 million in the subsequent divorce battle.
Edward Faulks KC, for Mrs. Helliwell, offered a robust refutation of Mr Entwistle's case.
“The appeal is a challenge for the actual findings of the judge and the exercise of his discretion about the weight to be given to the pre-marital agreement and the needs of the spouse,” he said.
'The story of the spouse about the background … is very selective and in some respects equipment wrong. He claims as facts aspects of his case that were considerably disputed.
“He turned out to be an unfair and unreliable witness; Conversely, the woman turned out to be honest, reliable and at all times to do her best to tell the truth to the court.
'Despite the findings of the judge about the pre-marriage agreement, he did not stick to the spouse.
“He assessed the needs of the spouse on a generous basis and gave him a fixed amount of £ 400,000 in addition to his equity. He did this despite the fact that the 'needs' of the spouse himself were created.
“They were largely from his exhaustion of funds on costs that have been decided to challenge the pre-marriage agreement and then reject generous open offers that exceed his final price.”
He further said that the husband 'the evidence about the (financial) disclosure of the woman' displays the wrong and said that the court said: 'She was aware that her' controlling 'father had partly placed part of his business interests in her name and that of her sister. She didn't know the detail of what he had done; Even less what the companies were worth. '
He also denied that the woman exercised the man on the husband to sign the pre-nup, and added: 'It is not unfair or unnecessary pressure to say that you will not get married without PNA.
'The statement of the husband that the woman was the dominant party who put him under pressure to conclude that the PNA is contrary to the findings of the judge and the evidence.
'He was a self -assured, experienced, highly educated professional with an acquaintance of PNAs. He was financially astute.
“The woman missed trust and was financially and emotionally dependent on her father.
'If the husband had accepted the woman's generous offers, the stress and costs of a process would have been avoided.
“This was a three -year -old, childless marriage. It was not his first marriage.
“It is the woman's submission that the judge was generous for the husband.”
Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Snowden have now reserved their statement about the case after a day -long hearing, to be given at a later date.
