Key Facts
- •Financial remedy proceedings between BI (wife) and EN (husband), both aged 50-51.
- •Married in May 2001, separated in September 2022.
- •Three children: B (22), C (19), D (17).
- •Both parties are French, met while studying in France.
- •Husband's career involved entrepreneurship and investment banking, leading to a substantial fortune.
- •Parties signed a 'Contrat de Mariage' (marriage contract) in Hong Kong before their wedding, electing separation de biens.
- •Dispute centered on the impact of the contract on the distribution of assets.
- •Husband's late disclosure of a significant asset sale created tension and increased costs.
Legal Principles
The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
Factors which would vitiate a contract will negate any effect that the PMA might otherwise have had. But factors falling short of those which would vitiate a contract may reduce, rather than eliminate, the weight to be given to the PMA.
Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050
Sound legal advice is desirable, but if it is clear that a party is fully aware of the implications of an ante-nuptial agreement and indifferent to detailed particulars of the other party’s assets, there is no need to accord the agreement reduced weight.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
The court always has to exercise its own discretion, if there is to be a starting point for the exercise of that discretion it has to be the statutory duty under s 25 of the 1973 Act. This applies to all applications for orders for financial provision...
Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862
In deciding on her needs, I would have to consider all the s 25 factors. This was a long marriage where the wife made a full and complete contribution in every respect. There are very significant resources available. The standard of living enjoyed during the marriage was high. The husband’s income was very high and large capital resources were generated. I am quite clear that any award based on need should be generous and complete.
CMX v EJX [2022] EWFC 136
Outcomes
The court found the Contrat de Mariage to be effective in preventing the wife from claiming a share of the husband's assets based on the sharing principle.
The court determined that both parties understood the contract's implications, including its effect on divorce, and intended it to govern their financial affairs on separation. The wife's understanding was solidified by her reaction to her parent's divorce and subsequent conversations with the husband.
The wife was awarded £22,932,326, consisting of the London home, the holiday home, a lump sum, and her existing funds.
This award was deemed fair to both parties, meeting the wife's needs given the length of the marriage, the standard of living, and the contributions of both parties. The court considered this generous and complete despite not being based on a sharing principle.