header-logo header-logo

02 October 2015 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7670 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Pre-nuptial pursuit

web_heaton_1

Pre-nups: the search for certainty continues, says Ed Heaton

In WW v HW [2015] EWHC 1844 (Fam), [2015] All ER (D) 167 (Jul), the parties had entered into an agreement which had provided that neither would make a claim against the other in the event of divorce and yet, by the time of the end of the hearing, they had, between them, run up costs of over £1.7m…

As the judge himself commented: “If ever there were a paradigm example of a case which demonstrates the need for more certainty in the law of financial remedies and nuptial agreements, this is surely it.”

The wife was 46 and the husband 57. The parties had met in 2000 and had entered into a pre-nuptial agreement in June 2002, at the wife’s instigation. The agreement was intended to protect the wife’s financial resources, which amounted to around £27m by the time of the hearing. They included interests in an historic stately home and a very valuable painting by a celebrated 16th century artist, and originated from the wife’s

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll