A former city banker who withdrew several million pounds from his and his wife’s joint bank account has lost an expensive court battle over a £6.4 million prenuptial agreement.
The court’s decision should serve as a salutary reminder that financial behaviour during marriage can have a significant impact on the financial outcome on divorce, even where there is a prenuptial agreement that would normally be upheld.
In Loh v Loh-Gronager, Ardal Loh-Gronager, a city banker, married Wei-Lyn Loh, described as an “enormously wealthy” businesswoman and heiress in 2019 having cohabited since 2015. He left is banking job to oversee the refurbishment of their London home, having signed a prenup agreement that, on divorce, would have seen him receive nearly £6.5 million.
The couple separated four years later when it was discovered that he had an “expensively financed relationship, parallel to his marriage”.
Over three years, Ardal Loh-Gronager took almost £4.5 million from their joint accounts as well as his wife’s own account. As well as secretly investing the money, the court was told he had “paid cash” to his mistress from the joint accounts, disguising payments as ‘flowers’.
On separating, Wei-Lyn Loh accused her husband of attempting to “undermine, harass and unsettle” her including posting personal photographs of her on Instagram, instructing a “lacklustre” private investigator to pose as a journalist attempting to interview her, and fabricating and doctoring emails to support his position in court.
The judge said that the husband had “deliberately sought to cause upset in the hope she would be persuaded to drop the case”, and that payments taken from the bank accounts were not with the wife’s agreement and should be treated as ‘on account’ of any lump sum.
The courts awarded Ardal Loh-Gronager £2.3 million instead of the £6.4 million he should have received under the prenuptial agreement. The majority of payments that had been taken were treated as being ‘on account’ of the husband’s entitlement under the prenuptial agreement and his bad behaviour was further taken into account when considering the amount of the award.
The judgment does not cover the award of costs, but the judge made it clear that he expected to be making a substantial costs order against the husband which is very likely to materially reduce the net amount he is to receive.
Behaviour matters
While prenuptial agreements carry significant weight in English law, they are not immune from scrutiny. Courts have discretion to depart from the strict terms of a prenup where enforcing it would lead to an unfair outcome.
Prenups are premised on an assumption of good faith. Where one party has wantonly spent marital assets, misused joint accounts, or engaged in dishonest or coercive conduct, the court may conclude that it would be inequitable to allow them to benefit fully from the agreement they signed. In the most extreme of cases, this can mean a substantial reduction in any lump sum that would otherwise have been payable under the prenup.
This is particularly relevant when arguments are made that significant transfers were ‘gifts’. For a payment to be treated as a genuine gift, there must usually be clear evidence of intention and consent. Secret withdrawals, disguised payments or spending that one party would not reasonably have agreed to are unlikely to meet that threshold.
In the worst of cases, how parties conduct themselves during their marriage can materially affect both enforceability and outcome, sometimes at very significant cost.
Contact our Family & Divorce Law experts
Philip Rutter is a Partner in the Bishop & Sewell Family & Divorce team. If you would like to contact a member of the team please call on 020 7631 4141 or email prutter@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 17 February 2026. The information above may be subject to change.
The content of this note should not be considered legal advice and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
