header-logo header-logo

Pre-nuptial agreements: where are we now?

24 January 2025 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 8101 / Categories: Features , Family , Divorce
printer mail-detail
204790
To what extent are pre-nuptial agreements now recognised under English law? Mark Pawlowski weighs up the latest decisions
  • This article considers the court’s approach to pre-nuptial agreements and reviews the case law focusing on both decisions where the agreement has been upheld, and those where (for a variety of reasons) it has not been enforced.
  • It also examines the court’s approach to foreign pre-nuptial agreements entered into by the parties who subsequently seek divorce in the English courts.

A growing number of cases decided since the Supreme Court ruling in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 have highlighted that pre-nuptial agreements are no longer regarded as contrary to public policy under English law. Our courts will now enforce such agreements, provided certain safeguards are met.

The effect, where such agreements are upheld, is to limit or preclude the parties from relying on the court’s discretionary jurisdiction under s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) in determining the proper distribution of family assets on divorce.

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
back-to-top-scroll