header-logo header-logo

North & South

19 October 2012 / Sarah Caroline Boyle , Kate Molan
Issue: 7534 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family , Ancillary relief
printer mail-detail

Marital agreements: who’s got it right? Kate Molan & Sarah Caroline Boyle

The Supreme Court’s decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 was welcomed by practitioners in England and Wales for setting down a number of much needed guiding principles about the treatment of marital agreements. Consequently, while an agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction of the court entirely, there is now a rebuttable presumption that a court should give effect to a nuptial agreement which has been entered into freely by both parties with full appreciation of the implications of the agreement unless in the circumstances it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement. The court in Radmacher acknowledged the interpretative difficulties facing practitioners in relation to the concept of fairness, making it clear that fairness will vary from case to case. However, it is clear that any agreement which would prejudice the reasonable requirements of the children of the family or fail to address a party’s needs would be regarded as unfair. 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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll