Key Facts
- •Husband (H) and Wife (W) are lawyers who entered into a pre-nuptial agreement (PNA) before their marriage in 2010.
- •The marriage ended in 2023, and a dispute arose concerning the interpretation and effect of the PNA on the division of assets.
- •The PNA stated that assets acquired before the marriage and those derived from pre-marital assets should remain separate, with equally shared assets acquired thereafter, except for the conversion of pre-marital assets.
- •H owned three properties, while W owned one. Two of H's properties were purchased during the marriage, creating a dispute over whether they should be considered marital assets.
- •W argued the PNA was unfair given her needs, particularly concerning one of H's properties used for holidays, and the significant disparity in their assets and pensions.
- •H argued the PNA should be upheld as it was freely entered into by both parties, was clear and fair given the context, and that W’s needs were met.
Legal Principles
Prenuptial agreements should be given effect unless it would be unfair to do so in the prevailing circumstances.
Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
Even with a prenuptial agreement, the court must consider the factors in s.25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862
A qualifying nuptial agreement cannot contract out of providing for a party’s needs.
Case Law and Law Commission recommendations
Where a party presents a coherent case for a less advantageous outcome than the court might otherwise determine, the court is not obliged to make a more generous order.
JS v RS [2015] EWHC 2921 (Fam); Z v Z [2011] EWHC 2878 (Fam)
The fairness of a prenuptial agreement is considered in light of children of the family, non-matrimonial property, and future circumstances.
Radmacher v Granatino
Outcomes
The prenuptial agreement is upheld.
The court found the agreement was freely entered into by both parties, who were both lawyers, despite not having specialist matrimonial finance expertise; the agreement was clear; and W's needs were met, particularly given the significant assets held by her and the potential for increased income.
A clean break order is made.
To give practical effect to the upheld prenuptial agreement.
Costs are at large.
Standard practice to deal with at a later date