MN v AN
[2023] EWHC 613 (Fam)
ND v KD
12 February 2024
[2024] EWFC 188 (B)
Family Court
A couple divorced after 10 years. They had a prenup, but the judge said it wasn't fair because the husband pressured his wife to sign it. The husband was found to have been controlling with money and hiding assets. The judge decided what money the wife should get and how it should be paid out. The husband will also pay some of the child's school fees. The judge tried to make sure both parties could move on financially.
Key Facts
- •Financial relief proceedings between ND (husband) and KD (wife).
- •Prenuptial agreement (PNA) signed 3 days before the wedding in 2013 is contested.
- •Bitterly contested litigation with significant legal costs on both sides.
- •Husband is a property developer; wife works in the charity sector.
- •Marriage lasted approximately 10 years.
- •Numerous complex property transactions during the marriage are central to the dispute.
- •The husband's father's financial contributions are questioned (loans vs. gifts).
- •The wife borrowed from her parents to fund her legal fees.
- •The husband's behavior is described as controlling and manipulative.
Legal Principles
The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement freely entered into with a full appreciation of its implications unless it would be unfair to hold the parties to their agreement.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC
There is no distinction between "predicament of real need" and a party being unable to meet reasonable needs from their own resources.
Ipecki v McConnell [2019] EWFC 19
If the court is satisfied an outsider will provide money to meet an award a party cannot meet from their absolute property, the court can make an award on that footing if fair. If it's clear the outsider will not provide aid, the court can do little.
TL v ML [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)
There is no right to share in income derived from post-separation endeavor.
Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727
Outcomes
The PNA is deemed invalid due to undue pressure and unfair terms.
The timing, the husband's insistence, imbalance of power, and the agreement's failure to provide for the wife's needs led to this conclusion.
Husband's father's loans are considered 'soft loans' and excluded from asset calculations, except for a repaid sum which is included.
Lack of evidence from the father, the husband's access to other funds, and the flexible repayment terms suggest they were not hard loans.
Wife's loan from parents is included as a soft loan.
While a formal agreement exists, the court acknowledges potential flexibility in repayment and that the wife shouldn't be penalized for borrowing from family.
Future profits from the husband's property development are not included in the asset distribution.
These are considered post-separation income, not marital assets.
Wife receives a total lump sum payment of £1,608,857 in stages.
This aims to provide for her needs while enabling the husband's property developments to proceed.
Husband to pay school fees for two years.
Based on the husband's father's offer to cover them.
Clean break order for both parties.
To sever financial ties and minimize future disputes.