header-logo header-logo

05 May 2023 / Stephen Gold
Issue: 8023 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Civil way , CPR , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 5 May 2023

Nuptial news; coining it in; in favour of juniors; out with the scissors.

NO MOOR

You will remember Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. Held the Supreme Court’s majority: ‘The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.’ And you may remember the Nuptial Agreements Bill recommended by the Law Commission nine years ago (according to Lord Bellamy in the House of Lords last week, the government would not be legislating in this area while the Commission was reviewing financial provision on divorce, but he hoped it would do so during the lifetime of Baroness Deech, if not his own).

Neither Radmacher nor the Bill had been heard of when the parties in M v A [2023] EWHC 613 (Fam), before Mr Justice Moor, entered into their pre-nuptial agreement (PNA). They each had legal advice, the

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll