header-logo header-logo

15 June 2012 / Anna Heenan
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

The after-shock

Pre-nuptial agreements: where are we now, asks Anna Heenan

We are now almost two years on from the case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, [2011] 1 All ER 373, in which the Supreme Court swept away the old rule that pre-nuptial agreements were contrary to public policy. The result has been an increase in pre-nuptial agreements by those attempting to combat the uncertainties of divorce. Courts have a wide discretion to redistribute property on divorce, which they exercise according to the principles set out in s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) and the concept of “fairness”. It is, however, widely accepted that the elasticity of “fairness” does little to create certainty. Recent case law on pre-nuptial agreements explores the circumstances in which they will be upheld and provides some guidance to those seeking a more certain outcome.

The Radmacher decision

This decision has been the subject of widespread comment and further analysis is perhaps unhelpful (and somewhat late). It is, however, useful to review the factors that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll