Post-Nups vs Settlement Agreements: The Battle for a Clean Break in PN v SA [2025] EWFC 141

In, PN v SA [2025] EWFC 141 the Family Court considered financial remedy proceedings following a 17-year marriage.  PN (“the wife”) and SA (“the husband”) were ultra-high-net-worth individuals with marital assets in the region of £460–540 million, separated after accruing wealth of approximately £1.5 billion.

The parties entered into a 2021 post-nuptial agreement to replicate the community of property regime from their home country, ensuring a 50/50 division of marital assets upon divorce. Following their separation in 2022, the husband and wife signed a settlement agreement in 2023 which introduced complex trust-based arrangements. Under the 2023 Settlement Agreement, the husband sought to anchor the financial resolution in the existing family trusts. He envisioned both parties remaining co‑protectors of those trusts going forward which would require mutual cooperation and ongoing communication as they would manage the trust together. The husband stood to gain from management fees of the trust but had no reliable means of oversight. He also believed a trust would be far more tax efficient way of managing the assets.

The wife argued that she was coerced into signing the 2023 settlement agreement under undue pressure and challenged the 2021 post-nuptial agreement also. The husband sought to enforce the 2023 settlement agreement, claiming it fairly implemented the post-nuptial agreement’s general principles.

The husband’s assets included significant holdings in private companies, trusts, and properties, with notable illiquidity concerns. Both parties agreed that a clean break was preferable but disagreed on the distribution structure and the use of trust arrangements.

The court found the post-nuptial agreement was enforceable, emphasising that it was negotiated on an equal footing and reflected common intentions at the time of signing. The agreement was accompanied by legal advice for both parties and full financial disclosure was exchanged when it was prepared. The post-nuptial agreement awarded 44.4% of the assets to the wife.

However, the settlement agreement was ruled invalid as it was found to be neither complete nor fair. The court ruled that the separation agreement was not a fully informed settlement style agreement as important information was missing or unclear. The judge found the husband exerted undue influence: isolating the wife from lawyers, deploying scare tactics (e.g. warning she’d end up “working the tills at Tesco”) and building persistent psychological pressure on the wife.

The court rejected the husband’s trust-based proposal as incompatible with achieving a clean break under MCA 1973, s 25A citing inherent difficulties in ongoing co-operation. The court applied the sharing principle, considered contributions during the marriage, the nature of marital assets, and expert valuation evidence to arrive at a broadly equal division.

The court imposed a modest 15% discount on the wife’s lump sum award to account for the husband’s retention of significant illiquid assets, including private company shares, to ensure a clean break was achieved. As the court rejected enforcement of the settlement agreement, the post-nuptial agreement formed the basis for distribution, with adjustments for asset liquidity and fairness requirements under MCA 1973.

The wife received assets totalling £230,778,588, approximately 44.4% of the marital assets, through property transfers, share allocations, and a discounted lump sum payment of £165,419,598.20. The parties were directed to achieve a clean break, with each bearing equal responsibility for future tax liabilities, except where indemnity was required. The husband was ordered to indemnify the wife against potential tax liabilities arising from trust-related issues post-judgment.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that neither party faces coercion or undue influence and receives adequate legal advice when drafting a pre-nuptial, post-nuptial or settlement agreement of the like to ensure that they are enforceable. It also emphasises the courts strong preference for a clean break approach where possible.

For more information on such agreements please see relevant guides below:

1. Pre-nuptial agreements: https://anthonygold.co.uk/guide/prenuptial-agreement/
2. Post-nuptial agreements: https://anthonygold.co.uk/guide/postnuptial-agreement/