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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll