header-logo header-logo

11 February 2010 / Lisa Carkeek
Issue: 7404 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

The worst of both worlds?

Has Radmacher clarified the status of pre-nuptial agreements? Lisa Carkeek reports

In England and Wales pre-nuptial agreements (PNAs) are void on public policy grounds and cannot be enforced. However, they remain subject to the judicial discretion conferred on judges to achieve fairness between parties in ancillary relief proceedings (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25). This situation has been criticised as “the worst of both worlds” (Hoffmann LJ in Pounds v Pounds [1994] 4 All ER 777).

The 1998 government green paper Supporting Families suggested that PNAs should not be legally binding where:
l one or both parties have not obtained independent specialist legal advice;
l no provision is made for children;
l the PNA does not comply with general contract law;
l the PNA is unjust to one or both parties;
l one or both parties failed to provide prior full financial disclosure; or
l the PNA is made less than 21 days before the marriage.

Further, the deputy High Court judge in K v K (Ancillary Relief: Pre-Nuptial Agreement) [2003] 1 FLR 120 distilled from the authorities on PNAs

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll