In PN v SA [2025] EWFC 141, the Family Court delivered a landmark judgment in what is believed to be the third-largest financial remedy case in English legal history. Behind the billion-pound headlines lies a powerful cautionary tale about pressure, emotional coercion, and the proper legal scrutiny of post-separation agreements.
The Case in Numbers
- Estimated marital wealth at separation: over £1.5 billion
- Legal costs spent: approximately £5.5 million
- Final settlement: over £460 million in divisible assets
- Payment made pre-judgment (to maximise tax advantages): $95 million offshore
But it wasn’t just the size of the estate that caught the court’s attention—it was the way the wife had been manoeuvred into signing a post-separation agreement under intense emotional and psychological pressure.
2023 Settlement Agreement: Fair Bargain or Coerced Consent?
The case turned on two agreements: a 2021 Post-Nuptial Agreement (PNA), which provided for equal division, and a 2023 Settlement Agreement signed after the parties separated. The husband argued the latter reflected a considered, updated agreement on asset division. The wife claimed she had signed under duress.
Mr Justice Cobb agreed with her.
Drawing on Edgar v Edgar [1980] 1 WLR 1410 and Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, the judge was clear: while separation agreements carry weight, they must be freely entered into. And here, the wife’s will had been “overborne”. The court accepted she had been subject to emotional, psychological, and financial pressure, including threats that the husband would “explode” the offshore trust structures and “destroy” their fortune through punitive tax events if she did not comply.
Legal Principles Reaffirmed
- Undue Pressure: As per Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44, coercion need not amount to duress to be actionable. Persistent psychological pressure—especially in the context of an emotionally fraught divorce—may suffice.
- Set Aside Jurisdiction: The court reiterated that even “signed” agreements may be displaced if enforcing them would result in injustice.
- Edgar Factors: In weighing the agreement, the court considered knowledge, legal advice, bargaining position, and changes in circumstance.
High Value, Higher Scrutiny
The court was also unimpressed by the suggestion that fairness had been achieved simply because both parties would receive over £200 million each. Fairness is not just about quantum, but process—and whether each party freely and knowingly entered into the deal.
Lessons for Practitioners
- Don’t Assume Size Shields: Even in ultra-high net worth (UHNW) cases, the basic principles of fairness and free will apply.
- Be Alert to Emotional Dynamics: Particularly where one party is financially or emotionally vulnerable post-separation.
- Process Matters: Attempts to short-circuit independent legal advice or use pressure tactics—even subtly—can invalidate agreements.
- Beware “Exploding Trust” Threats: This modern metaphor for financial destruction was critical to the court’s finding of pressure.
Final Thought
This case is a timely reminder that even where couples share phenomenal wealth, the emotional currents of divorce can distort negotiations. Agreements reached under pressure—however cleverly disguised—will not be rubber-stamped by the court. Family law’s guiding principle remains the same: fairness, not force.
