AH v BH
[2024] EWFC 125
MN v AN
10 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 613 (Fam)
Family Court
A rich couple had a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married. After they divorced, the wife tried to get out of it, saying she was pressured. The judge said the agreement was fair, so the wife got what it said she should – a lot of money – but she has to sell the family house and move.
Key Facts
- •High-net-worth divorce case involving a pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) signed in 2005.
- •Husband had £32.5 million net assets at the time of the PNA.
- •Wife was a homemaker and child-carer.
- •Two children of the marriage, aged 15 and 14.
- •Marriage lasted 14 years.
- •PNA provided for the wife to receive £500,000 per year of marriage, up to £12.5 million, plus half the value of the London property after 8 years or the birth of children, capped at 42% of the husband's net worth.
- •Husband's current assets are approximately £46 million.
- •Wife's assets are negative due to litigation loan.
- •Dispute centered on the validity and fairness of the PNA in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Radmacher v Granatino.
- •Wife alleged undue pressure and coercive control during the negotiation of the PNA.
- •Significant disagreement regarding the wife's needs and the appropriate standard of living.
Legal Principles
Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: The court must consider all circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare of children.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
White v White: No discrimination between husband and wife in financial remedy cases.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54
K v L: Unacceptable discrimination in the division of labour within the family.
K v L [2012] 1 WLR 306
Miller/McFarlane: Three principles for fairness: sharing of matrimonial property, compensation for relationship-generated disadvantage, and needs balanced against ability to pay.
Miller/McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24
Radmacher v Granatino: Nuptial agreements should be upheld unless it would be unfair to do so. Factors to consider include duress, undue pressure, unconscionable conduct, and whether the agreement meets the applicant's needs.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
Brack v Brack: Even with an effective prenuptial agreement, the court must consider all s25(2) factors and the circumstances to achieve a fair outcome, potentially exceeding needs-based provision.
Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862
KA v MA: A pre-nuptial agreement's existence before Radmacher doesn't automatically diminish its weight; it's not undue pressure to state marriage is conditional on an acceptable agreement.
KA v MA [2018] EWHC 499
RBS v Etridge (No 2): Undue pressure is a question of fact; burden of proof rests on the party alleging it; all circumstances considered, including emotional state and pressures.
RBS v Etridge (No 2) [2001] 2 FLR 1364
Outcomes
The pre-nuptial agreement is upheld.
The judge found no vitiating factors (duress, undue pressure, etc.) affecting the validity of the PNA. While the wife was under pressure, it was not 'undue' pressure. The agreement was considered fair given the circumstances, including the high standard of living and the wife's lack of independent income.
Wife to receive £11.75 million in accordance with the PNA (£7 million Duxbury fund and £4.75 million for housing), plus the discharge of her litigation loan.
This amount reflects the terms of the PNA, deemed fair by the judge, and addresses the wife's financial needs.
London property to be sold; wife to vacate within six months.
The judge deemed it unnecessary for the wife to retain the London property, considering the children's adaptability and the wife's ability to purchase suitable alternative housing with the financial provision awarded.
Husband to pay wife's litigation loan.
The judge found it equitable given the husband's financial resources and the wife's reliance on a high-interest loan.
Joint Credit Suisse account transferred to the husband.
The judge accepted the husband's argument that this money originated from a remortgage of the Country Property.