What the UK’s Third-Largest Divorce Settlement Teaches Us About Coercive Control
A £230 million landmark ruling highlights an increasingly nuanced legal approach to coercive behaviour in divorce
A Landmark Case
In one of the most striking divorce rulings in recent memory, the High Court has awarded a wife £230 million — the third-largest divorce settlement in English legal history — after finding that her husband’s coercive and controlling behaviour eroded her ability to negotiate freely.
The couple, both in their 40s and described in court documents as “phenomenally wealthy,” married in 2005 in “Country A” before relocating to the UK in 2018 with their three children. The husband had amassed a vast fortune after floating his tech company in 2012. But when their marriage broke down in 2022, financial negotiations quickly became a battleground.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cobb, makes clear that financial power cannot be used as a weapon to undermine consent. It also signals a shift in how English courts are prepared to scrutinise coercive control — not just in the context of domestic abuse prosecutions, but in divorce settlements too.
The Tactics of Control
Court records revealed a pattern of intimidation and pressure:
- The husband warned his wife that if she did not agree to a restrictive financial arrangement, their family would become bankrupt and their children would lose their inheritance.
- He told her she could end up “working on the tills at Tesco.”
- He repeatedly insisted she sign agreements, warning that otherwise she faced “five years of fight.”
The wife described the psychological toll: she would “start to shake” when his name appeared on her phone, and described the negotiations as “killing me … in the real sense.” At one point she asked: “What is my time worth? How much is my trapped life worth? End that torture right away!”
Justice Cobb concluded that these messages were not isolated outbursts but a sustained campaign of coercion, intended to strip the wife of meaningful choice. Crucially, he found that the husband deliberately sought to isolate her from her legal adviser, further undermining her ability to act independently.
The Legal Significance
Traditionally, English courts have been reluctant to examine the internal dynamics of marriages when dividing assets. Financial remedies have focused on the “big picture”: needs, sharing of matrimonial property, and fairness. Conduct has usually only been relevant where it was “gross and obvious.”
But this ruling marks a departure. For the first time, a judge closely analysed digital communications — WhatsApp, texts, emails, voice notes — spanning many months to build a picture of coercive control.
According to Claire Gordon of Farrer & Co, who represented the wife, this reflects “a marked step towards a modern and nuanced approach to coercive control in financial outcomes.”
Instead of requiring one dramatic incident of abuse, the court recognised that persistent, attritional pressure can be just as damaging, particularly in the context of negotiating financial agreements.
Postnups and Pressure
The dispute centred on two marital agreements:
- A 2021 postnuptial agreement, signed while the couple were still married.
- A later post-separation agreement, which the husband tried to enforce during the divorce.
Justice Cobb upheld the 2021 postnup, noting that it had been entered into with full financial disclosure and proper legal advice on both sides. This demonstrates the enduring value of carefully drafted nuptial agreements.
However, the post-separation agreement was rejected. Cobb described it as “inchoate” and the product of undue influence, making clear that agreements born of pressure cannot stand — no matter how large the settlement figure might be.
This underlines a vital point for couples: while courts respect autonomy and the freedom to contract, any hint of coercion, lack of disclosure, or imbalance of power can invalidate an agreement.
Coercive Control in Family Law
The concept of coercive control has been part of UK criminal law since 2015, when Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate relationships.
In the family courts, however, its role has been evolving more slowly. Domestic abuse is certainly relevant to child arrangements, but until recently, it rarely influenced financial settlements.
This case signals a new willingness to engage with the subtleties of coercive behaviour:
- Recognising that coercion can be economic as well as emotional.
- Accepting that intimidation may occur through threats of financial ruin, not just physical harm.
- Treating persistent pressure over time as equally damaging as overt violence.
The ruling may encourage other judges to give greater weight to coercive control when deciding whether agreements are binding and what constitutes a fair division of wealth.
A Divided Profession
Not everyone in the legal community agrees on how far this development should go. Some argue that delving into the “micro-dynamics” of relationships risks bogging down financial cases in subjective assessments. Others welcome the recognition that power imbalances can fundamentally distort consent.
What is clear is that the High Court has now set a precedent: coercive control can and will be scrutinised, particularly where it affects financial decision-making.
Lessons for Future Cases
This case offers several important takeaways:
- Nuptial agreements are valuable — if done properly. Full disclosure, independent legal advice, and an absence of pressure remain the gold standard. Courts are far more likely to uphold agreements made under these conditions.
- Conduct matters. While historically sidelined, the role of coercive behaviour is expanding. Persistent financial intimidation may now directly affect outcomes.
- Digital footprints are evidence. WhatsApp messages, texts, and emails formed the backbone of this case. Couples should be aware that their communications may later be scrutinised in court.
- Wealth does not shield against scrutiny. This case involved billions, but the principles apply equally to less wealthy families where one spouse exerts undue influence over financial negotiations.
- The law is shifting. Family lawyers must be prepared for greater judicial interest in patterns of behaviour, not just headline numbers.
Broader Context: Economic Abuse
The case also dovetails with a growing recognition of economic abuse as a form of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 explicitly included economic abuse within its definition, highlighting behaviours such as controlling access to money, preventing a partner from working, or forcing financial dependence.
Justice Cobb’s ruling shows that these concerns are now filtering into high-value divorce cases. The court was clear: financial pressure that undermines autonomy cannot be ignored, even where the sums involved are staggering.
Implications for High-Net-Worth (HNW) Divorces
London has long been labelled the “divorce capital of the world,” partly because of its generous approach to financial awards. This ruling reinforces that reputation — but with a new emphasis.
It suggests that wealthy spouses cannot rely on intimidation or contractual manoeuvring to cut down settlements. Even vast agreements will be struck down if tainted by coercion. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of:
- Documenting negotiations carefully.
- Ensuring clients have independent, unpressured access to advice.
- Anticipating that communications may later be scrutinised.
For spouses, the message is equally clear: consent must be real, not manufactured under threat.
Conclusion
The £230 million award is extraordinary not only for its size but for its legal reasoning. By treating coercive control as central to financial negotiations, Justice Cobb has signalled a more modern, realistic understanding of how power operates within relationships.
This landmark ruling will not be the last word. But it sets a powerful precedent: financial settlements cannot be built on intimidation, no matter how wealthy the parties or how carefully agreements are dressed up.
For family lawyers and divorcing spouses alike, the case is a reminder that in the eyes of the English courts, fairness requires freedom — and freedom means freedom from coercion.
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
