header-logo header-logo

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

North & South

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

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