Husband left with just £300k of wife’s £61m fortune in divorce…after demanding £1,000s for meal plans as he ‘can’t cook’
A HUSBAND has been left feeling short-changed after getting £300,000 in a divorce settlement – despite his wife’s £61million fortune.
Financial trader Simon Entwistle demanded multi-millionaire heiress Jenny Helliwell hand him five-figure payouts for yearly flights, as well as huge sums to help with his “meal plans” in the court battle.
The pair, both 42, split in 2022 after spending eight years enjoying an “opulent standard of living”.
Entwistle lived in a £4.5 million villa in Dubai, which was gifted to his wife by her businessman dad, while the couple also celebrated their marriage with a lavish £500,000 ceremony in Paris.
But once their relationship hit the rocks, major issues soon kicked off.
Helliwell – the daughter of wealthy Dubai-based British businessman Neil Helliwell – ordered lawyers to help boot her then husband out of the family home on only 48 hours‘ notice.
The pair then engaged in a lengthy court battle with Entwistle, originally from Bolton, asking for £2.5 million from his interior designer ex-wife’s personal fortune.
It is widely reported that she is worth anywhere between an estimated £60-£70 million.
The court decided against handing Entwistle millions and instead gave him just £325,000.
London High Court divorce judge Mr Justice Francis’s decision actually left Entwistle £125,000 in the red as he had spent £450,000 on lawyer fees.
At first, Entwistle was awarded £400,000 in a January judgement but it was later reduced to £325,000 after he was ordered to pay £75,000 towards his ex-wife’s fees.
The Bolton-based husband was actually offered £800,000 by his former lover before they went to court – but he decided to hold out.
During the hearing, Justice Francis said: “The parties went through this painful litigation and the husband is actually worse off now than he would have been if he never brought a claim in the first place, which is tragic for everybody.”
He continued saying that the husband wasn’t entitled to any more money because he had made “aspirational” claims in the past.
One of these, which was described as “astonishing”, saw Entwistle claim for £36,000-a-year for flights.
Another bizarre request for £26,000-a-year came as the divorcee wanted to be paid for “meal plans”.
The judge added: “He said to me, ‘I can’t even cook an omelette.’ Well, my answer to that is, ‘Learn.’ It is not difficult.
“You do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well.
“Being married to a rich person for three years does not suddenly catapult you into a right to live like that after the relationship has ended.”
Entwistle is now appealing the ruling as he claims he was the victim of “gender prejudice” by the judge.
He claims that if the gender roles were reversed a wife suing a wealthy husband would be left in a much richer position.
Deborah Bangay KC, who is representing the husband at the Court of Appeal, said: “The judge was warned against gender prejudice, but failed to heed that warning.
“Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have…so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship.”
Helliwell has already started to fight the claim, with her lawyers arguing the divorce judge had in fact been “generous to him”.
Justice Francis originally found the husband’s personal assets were valued at around £850,000.
This included a flat in Salford where he had lived with his first wife.
Helliwell by contrast was worth a minimum of £61.5 million due to her dad’s vast gifts.
Summing up in the Court of Appeal, Entwistle’s barrister said: “The judge didn’t consider the disparity in resources, the length of the relationship, the husband’s contribution to the marriage and the parties’ standard of living.
“Had he done so, he would not have left the husband in a worse position than before he brought the case, because the costs were £450,000 and he received £325,000.”
Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Snowden have now reserved their ruling on the case after a day-long hearing, to be given at a later date.