Can coercive control impact a financial settlement?

However, the recent case of PN v SA [2025] EWFC resulted in a billionaire tech entrepreneur being ordered to pay his wife £230 million after the court found that he had used persistent coercive behaviour which undermined her free will and ability to effectively negotiate a financial settlement.

Facts of the case

The couple, both in their 40's, married in 2005. They moved to the UK in 2018 to educate their children. The couple's financial position took a significant turn for the better, when the husband floated his tech company in 2012 which earnt him billionaire status. The marriage broke down in 2022.

During the financial negotiations, the husband sought to intimidate and coerce his wife into signing a new financial agreement. If she did not do so he said that there would be "5 years of fight". He also said that if she stuck to the post nuptial agreement (signed in 2021) the family would become bankrupt, their three children would end up denied of their inheritance and she would "end up working on the tills in Tesco".

The wife described the impact that his threats were having on her by describing the process as "killing me…in the real sense" and said that she would "start to shake" whenever his name appeared on her phone. She pleaded with him to "end the torture right away".

The difference in this case was the court's acknowledgement of the persistent, damaging conduct of the husband and how this negatively effected the wife in proceedings. The wife need not have shown one stand out event, but more the impact of sustained deliberate misconduct. It would seem that he considered it appropriate to bully his way to a financial settlement that would better serve him. Justice Cobb found that the husband had "specifically and deliberately" tried to isolate the wife from her legal team and drive a wedge between them for his own advantage.

Impact on nuptial agreements

By seeking to force the wife to enter into a second agreement against her will, the husband was indeed undermining the clear guidance on nuptial agreements which requires free consent, legal advice and financial disclosure for it to be valid. The order demonstrates that pressurised agreements simply will not stand up, no matter how seemingly high the financial settlement is.

What can we learn from this case?

In short, this case emphasises the importance of fair, reasonable negotiations for financial settlements. It is pleasing to see the court taking a robust approach to ensure that vulnerable parties are being protected from underhand, aggressive tactics of another party. It is really important as lawyers that we identify these behaviours early on and deal with such issues appropriately.

If you would like any advice on how our team can assist with your divorce and discussing financial matters, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0117 925 2020