PREVIOUS POSTS
- Welcome to our Blog
- BLB Solicitors to sponsor Medico-Legal Conference
- All change in our Bath office's property department
- Author makes stunning debut with first book in Dustlands Trilogy
- Wills are in the news again
- The First Cambridge Annual Medico-Legal Pain Conference
- Kernott v Jones : Supreme Court hands down judgment
- High Court upholds Pre-Nuptial Agreement against wishes of wife
- Crown Prosecution Service plans to go "paperless"
- Daughters fail to reverse father's will leaving £4million fortune to step-mother
- Financial remedies in modest asset divorce cases
- Season's Greetings to all our clients
- BLB client wins prestigious Costa Childrens Book award
- Divorce - have you considered Collaborative Law?
- Judicial support for pre-nuptial agreements continues
- A deathbed marriage
- BLB welcomes new joiner to Bath property department
- Tax rule changes to encourage legacy giving
Judicial support for pre-nuptial agreements continues
January 25, 2012 at 10:33 AM
In the recent High Court case of V v V [2011] EWHC 3230 (Fam), the Husband appealed the decision of the District Judge on the financial settlement following their divorce. The High Court allowed the appeal on the basis that insufficient weight had been attached to the pre-nuptial agreement which the couple had entered into. The purpose of that agreement was to enable the Husband to retain property, worth approximately £1 million at the time of the agreement, that he had acquired prior to the marriage.
It was held that, following the case of Granatino v Radmacher, due regard must be given to the parties' autonomy and an agreement entered into freely and willingly should be given appropriate weight. There was evidence that both the Husband and the Wife had entered into the pre-nuptial agreement intending it to be effective. The agreement proved to be a good reason to depart from equality. Charles J said that the existence of such an agreement is "a factor to which appropriate weight should be given in determining how the needs of the payee spouse and any children are to be funded by a combination of an award of capital, periodical payments, pension sharing". This case was one where the settlement was dictated by the needs of the parties and the children, and it was held that the Husband should have a charge back against the Wife's new home. This meant that he would retain an interest of one third in that property, plus a percentage to reflect his costs, to be realised at a later date.
Please add a comment
Leave a Reply
We are authorised & regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority – Number 47173 | Admin
