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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll