header-logo header-logo

The worst of both worlds?

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

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 a checklist

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll