Judge Accused of ‘Gender Prejudice’ in £61.5m Divorce Battle
-1684135371.jpeg)
Did a husband receive an unfairly low settlement because of outdated assumptions about gender roles in marriage? A high-profile case sparks debate on equality in the family courts.
The Case
In March 2025, a High Court ruling in London set off a storm of controversy. Simon Entwistle, embroiled in divorce proceedings with his former wife, Jenny Helliwell, argued that the court had unfairly undervalued his financial claims because he was a man.
Entwistle, who had sought £2.5 million from Helliwell’s estimated £61.5 million fortune, was instead awarded £325,000. His legal team immediately claimed the ruling revealed a gendered double standard — suggesting that had the roles been reversed, a wife in his position would likely have received far more.
The accusation of “gender prejudice” has reignited long-standing debates about fairness, gender roles, and equality in England’s divorce courts.
A Question of Fairness
At the centre of Entwistle’s complaint is the perception that English courts remain more protective of women in financial disputes, particularly when they have acted as homemakers or primary carers during the marriage.
Traditionally, divorce settlements in England and Wales have been based on three principles:
- Needs – ensuring both parties can move forward without undue hardship.
- Compensation – recognising financial disadvantage caused by the marriage (e.g., giving up a career to raise children).
- Sharing – treating marital assets as jointly owned, regardless of who earned them.
Entwistle’s lawyers argued that these principles were applied unevenly. They claimed that if he were a woman seeking support from a wealthy male spouse, the court would have taken a far more generous approach — particularly when assessing the needs element of the settlement.
The Gender Debate in Divorce Law
For decades, English divorce law has been hailed as progressive, particularly for ensuring that homemakers are not left destitute after long marriages. Cases such as White v White [2000] UKHL 54 established the principle of fairness, moving away from the breadwinner/homemaker divide and confirming that contributions to family life are equally valuable.
But critics now argue that this legacy sometimes works in reverse. In heterosexual marriages, husbands who have played a secondary role financially often feel the law is reluctant to protect them in the same way it protects wives.
This perception feeds into wider cultural debates about gender equality, feminism, and the role of men in modern marriages. Should husbands who give up careers, act as homemakers, or otherwise depend on their wives be entitled to the same financial safeguards?
Entwistle’s Position
According to reports, Entwistle sought £2.5 million — a relatively small slice of Helliwell’s estimated £61.5 million assets. He argued that his financial needs, combined with the lifestyle he had grown accustomed to during the marriage, justified the claim.
The judge, however, assessed his needs far more narrowly, ultimately granting him £325,000. The decision reflected a belief that Entwistle was capable of financial independence and that his marriage had not disadvantaged him in the same way that women, historically, have often been disadvantaged.
His legal team described the judgment as “ungenerously assessed”, accusing the court of clinging to outdated assumptions: that men are naturally self-sufficient and less deserving of financial support from wealthier female spouses.
The Wider Implications
This case raises important questions about the direction of English family law:
- Equality of treatment: If women and men are meant to be equal before the law, should the courts assume that men can fend for themselves financially while women require protection?
- Changing social norms: With more women now earning higher salaries and more men stepping back from traditional breadwinner roles, should divorce law adapt to these shifts?
- The perception of bias: Even if judges believe they are applying the law fairly, the appearance of gender prejudice can damage public confidence in the family justice system.
Precedents and Contrasts
Other cases shed light on how unusual Entwistle’s situation is.
- In high-value divorces where husbands are the primary earners, wives frequently receive multi-million-pound settlements, often based on needs far exceeding basic living costs.
- Courts have been clear that “needs” are assessed relative to the lifestyle enjoyed during the marriage. This is why wealthy spouses can expect awards that cover expensive housing, schooling, and even leisure.
Entwistle’s legal team argued that the same principle was not applied here. They claim that the judge effectively dismissed his marital lifestyle and reduced his “needs” to a bare minimum.
The Risk of Overcorrection
Some family lawyers caution that in striving to correct historic disadvantages faced by women, the courts may now be at risk of overcorrecting.
While it is essential to protect vulnerable spouses, they argue, this protection should not be gendered. If the law continues to assume that men do not require the same level of support, genuine financial hardship may result.
Others, however, insist that the law already treats men and women equally — and that cases like Entwistle’s reflect the unique facts of the marriage, not systemic bias.
A Feminist Perspective
Interestingly, feminist scholars are divided.
- Some argue that gender prejudice still overwhelmingly disadvantages women in family law, especially around child arrangements and enforcement of maintenance orders.
- Others welcome cases like Entwistle’s as a reminder that true equality must be gender-neutral: men should not be penalised simply because they are men.
This tension reflects the complexity of applying feminist principles in modern family law. Equality means recognising both historical disadvantage and present-day realities.
The Role of Judges
Family judges exercise broad discretion. While the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides the framework, outcomes often depend on judicial interpretation of fairness.
That discretion is both a strength and a weakness:
- It allows tailored outcomes for each family’s unique circumstances.
- But it also leaves room for unconscious bias — whether based on gender, wealth, or lifestyle.
Calls for reform have periodically suggested introducing more formulaic approaches, like those used in child maintenance, to reduce perceived inconsistency. Critics, however, argue that rigid formulas could never reflect the complexity of high-value marriages.
Lessons for Couples
This case provides several key lessons:
- Gender roles are shifting. Courts are now grappling with marriages where women are the wealthier spouses. Both men and women should prepare for outcomes that may not align with traditional expectations.
- Needs are subjective. The “needs” principle remains central but is open to interpretation. Lifestyle, assets, and earning capacity all play a role.
- Nuptial agreements matter. Properly drafted pre- or post-nuptial agreements can reduce uncertainty and help avoid claims of bias.
- Transparency and independence. Both parties should seek independent legal advice and ensure financial disclosure is complete.
- Public perception matters. High-profile cases shape public trust in the system. Allegations of prejudice — even if unfounded — can erode confidence.
Conclusion
The £61.5 million divorce battle between Simon Entwistle and Jenny Helliwell has done more than divide assets. It has reignited debate about gender, fairness, and equality in family law.
Was Entwistle treated unfairly because he was a man, or was the court simply applying established principles to his specific circumstances? The answer may depend on one’s perspective.
What is clear, however, is that as social roles evolve, so too must the law — and its application. If family justice is to command confidence, it must ensure that fairness is not only done, but seen to be done — for men and women alike.
Related Articles:
Protect Your Future: Why a Pre-nup or Post-nup Could Be One of the Smartest Legal Steps You Take
Pre-Nups vs Post-Nups: What’s the Difference — and Why You Might Need One
