News

The High Court’s decision in Loh v Loh‑Gronager [2025] EWFC 483 serves as a striking reminder that even the strongest, Radmacher‑compliant pre-nuptial agreement (‘prenup’) cannot shield a party from the financial consequences of serious misconduct. The case, determined by Cusworth J, arose from a short, childless marriage governed by a detailed prenup intended to limit the husband’s entitlement on divorce. Although the agreement would ordinarily have produced a settlement of around £6.45 million, the husband ultimately received just £2.37 million after the court applied significant deductions for both sums he had already extracted from joint funds and his exceptionally serious litigation misconduct. This decision came following lengthy proceedings with combined legal costs amounting to nearly £4.8 million. 

The undoing of a Radmacher‑compliant prenup 

The parties began living together in 2015, entered into a detailed pre‑nuptial agreement in March 2019, married in October 2019, and separated in May 2023. The court accepted that the parties had entered into a fully compliant prenup, disapplying sharing and compensation principles and limiting the husband’s award by length of marriage. However, as the judgment makes clear, a prenup is not a licence to treat joint assets as personal property. Cusworth J rejected the husband’s assertion that the agreement entitled him to use jointly held funds as he pleased. He emphasised that joint accounts serve a defined purpose and unilateral withdrawals, particularly of the scale seen in this case, could not be justified by silence or inattention from the other spouse.

Misconduct “inequitable to disregard” 

The husband’s behaviour, both during the marriage and throughout the proceedings, crossed the statutory threshold of conduct that would be “inequitable to disregard” under s.25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. His actions included: 

• systematic unauthorised withdrawals of joint funds for personal investments (totalling £3.7million), 
• fabrication and manipulation of email evidence, and 
• attempts to intimidate his wife, including posting personal photographs online and instructing a private investigator to monitor her home. 

Cusworth J described this as among “the most serious level of litigation misconduct” encountered in the Family Court. Once such “deplorable” behaviour was established, the husband’s credibility was “fatally undermined”, and the court found it would be unjust to permit him the full benefit of the prenup. 

Outcome 

Taking the misconduct into account, the court reduced the husband’s award by £4.08 million to £2.37 million, reflecting both sums already withdrawn during the marriage and a further penalty of approximately £375,000 directly attributable to his litigation conduct. A separate ruling on costs is expected, with the court indicating that a substantial costs order in the wife’s favour is likely, irrespective of the husband’s ‘needs’ due to the seriousness of the husband’s misconduct.

Why Loh v Loh‑Gronager matters 

The judgment reinforces important principles for high‑net‑worth couples: 

1. Prenups remain influential but they do not excuse behaviour that threatens the fairness or integrity of financial remedy proceedings; 
2. Joint funds must be treated with care. Their use during the marriage cannot be re‑characterised retrospectively to the withdrawing spouse’s advantage; and 
3. Litigation misconduct carries real financial risk, including substantial deductions from otherwise agreed entitlements and potentially adverse costs orders. 

For practitioners, Loh v Loh‑Gronager stands as a compelling example of the rare but important circumstances in which conduct can decisively alter an otherwise predictable financial outcome. 

The Sinclair Gibson Family Department advises on all aspects of financial remedy work, including prenuptial agreements and complex conduct‑based cases; for further guidance, please contact Kathryn Peat, Xanthy Papageorgiou or Lauren Brolly.