Mary Louise Charlotte Backstrom v Martin Carl Simon Wennberg
[2023] EWFC 79
BL v OR
7 December 2023
[2023] EWFC 229
Family Court
A wealthy husband and wife divorced. They had a prenup, and the wife gave away her house without telling her husband. The judge decided the wife needed a new house and some money to live on. He gave her a new house, but the husband gets a share of it when she dies. He also gave her money, but less than she asked for because she gave away her own house.
Key Facts
- •Wife's application for financial remedy orders following divorce.
- •Second marriage for both parties; husband significantly wealthier.
- •Prenuptial agreement (PNA) existed, signed 3 weeks before marriage.
- •Wife gifted her main asset (St John's Wood flat) to her daughters during the marriage, without informing the husband.
- •Husband's subsequent conviction for tax evasion.
- •Significant disagreement on the interpretation and weight of the PNA.
- •Wife's initial claim for £9.2m, husband's offer of £4m (in addition to £738,341 already paid under PNA).
Legal Principles
Overriding criterion in ancillary relief proceedings is fairness, encompassing need, compensation, and sharing.
Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42, White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618
Courts should give effect to freely entered nuptial agreements unless unfair in prevailing circumstances. Respect for individual autonomy is key.
Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42
Distinction between non-matrimonial and matrimonial property is significant when considering fairness in light of a prenuptial agreement.
White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618
Alienation of assets is a material factor impacting needs assessment, even if not pleaded as conduct or dissipation.
This case's interpretation of prenuptial agreements and needs assessment.
Court has wide discretion in determining appropriate financial orders, including trust-based housing provision or limited capitalised maintenance sums.
HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2, Radmacher, WW v HW, Luckwell v Limata [2014] 2 FLR 168, Ipecki v McConnell, AH v PH [2013] EWHC 3873, KA v MA
In cases with valid prenuptial agreements, fairness often demands a needs-based settlement, but not always. All s25(2) MCA 1973 factors must be considered.
Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862
Outcomes
Wife awarded a housing fund of up to £2.6m, subject to a 40% charge in favour of the husband.
Balances wife's need for housing in her preferred location with husband's interest in protecting his assets, considering wife's gift of her previous home.
Wife awarded a capitalised income fund of £2.269m (£140,000 per annum).
Reflects a high standard of living during the marriage, while considering husband's arguments for a lower figure and making adjustments for identified deficiencies in his calculations.
Wife's existing assets (£555,000) not deducted from the income fund award.
To provide funds for furnishing the new home, incidental expenses, and obtaining a full state pension.