(This article is from Step, and we put it here only for our internal members to study and research. If it violates the author’s copyright, please send e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and we will delete it immediately.)

The England and Wales High Court has rejected a woman's claim that she signed a post-nuptial agreement under duress or undue pressure from her ex-husband.

Caroline Hopkins married wealthy property developer William Hopkins in April 2009, having known one another for decades. However, the marriage collapsed within two years. There were several attempts at a negotiated reconciliation, but in February 2011 William Hopkins instructed his lawyer, Fiona Shackleton, to begin divorce proceedings.

Later that month he suggested to Caroline Hopkins that they should sign a post-nuptial agreement in which she would acquire two properties and a car plus GBP75,000 in full and final settlement of her financial remedy claims. This occurred several months after the Supreme Court gave judgment in the Radmacher case (2010 UKSC 42) which established that the English courts would enforce properly made marital property agreements.

Discussions continued over the following month, with Mrs. Hopkins' solicitor Justin Martin warning her not to sign anything at least until her husband had made proper financial disclosure. Martin advised her that Mr. Hopkins probably had assets over GBP30 million, of which she would be entitled to a significant proportion on divorce. Martin also told Mrs. Hopkins, in writing, that he would proceed with the post-nuptial agreement if so instructed, but would ask her to sign a disclaimer that this was against his advice.

Though Mrs. Hopkins claimed in this correspondence that she was being 'intimidated', she ultimately decided that her main priority was to end the relationship while remaining friendly with Mr. Hopkins. After some re-negotiation of the proposed post-nuptial agreement – ending with a settlement equivalent to GBP2 million in cash terms – she declared several times to Martin that she was happy with it, though she subsequently said that she only wrote these emails at her husband's dictation.

Martin then obtained an opinion from a specialist counsel, to the effect that the agreement was unfair but because of its clarity would be upheld by a court. He passed this opinion on to his client, but on 4 August she instructed him to date the document to make it binding.

Sixteen months later she filed an application to challenge the consent order reflecting the post-nuptial agreement. She claimed that the agreement was vitiated 'by duress, or undue pressure, or the exploitation by the husband of a dominant position over the wife, after taking into account the wife's emotional state and the pressures which it is said that she was feeling under at the time'.

She also claimed that she had not read her legal advice 'or sufficiently absorbed it prior to concluding the agreement, because of the pressure she alleges [were] placed on her by the husband'. At one point in the discussions, she alleged, Mr. Hopkins 'took hold of her clothes at the neck and threatened her with his fist'; which he denied. The fact that Mrs. Hopkins had entered into the agreement contrary to advice from solicitors and counsel was itself evidence that she did so under duress, she said.

However, Judge Nicholas Cusworth QC in the Family Court did not accept her arguments. He noted that her claim not to have understood her legal advice was weakened by her several visits to a specialist matrimonial solicitor concerning the marital breakdown. Her email exchanges with Justin Martin also indicated 'a significant understanding of the content' of Martin's advice not to sign the agreement. Moreover, she had signed a clear and unequivocal disclaimer declaring that she understood and rejected Martin's advice.

Nicholas Cusworth QC rejected the idea that she was operating under undue influence, duress or improper pressure, noting that she did not produce the throat-grabbing allegation until after Martin had suggested she was being 'bullied'. He also rejected the claim that her emails to Martin were dictated by her husband. 'There is no credible evidence to support the wife's assertion that during the relevant period she was being "controlled" by the husband', he commented.

The judge decided that Caroline Hopkins had signed the agreement freely and with full advice, was rational at the time, and knew that it was a watertight and binding agreement. The post-nuptial agreement – augmented by a further offer of GBP200,000 from Mr. Hopkins towards his ex-wife's legal costs – was upheld (Hopkins v Hopkins, 2015 EWHC 812 Fam).

The opinions expressed do not constitute investment advice and specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Published on our website on Apr.1, 2015