BLB Solicitors
BLB Solicitors
  • Home
  • COVID-19 Hub
  • Services for You
    • Residential Property
    • Leasehold Property Rights
    • Property Dispute Resolution
    • Divorce and Family Law
    • Lifetime Planning and Wills
    • Probate and Estate Administration
    • Personal Injury Compensation
    • Medical Negligence
  • Services for Business
    • Commercial Property
    • Commercial Property Disputes
    • Company & Commercial
    • Estate Management
  • Locations
    • Almondsbury
    • Bath
    • Bristol
    • Bradford on Avon
    • Swindon
    • Trowbridge
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Working for BLB
    • How we work
    • Making Payments
    • Instructing BLB
    • Terms of Business
    • Complaints Policy
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
BLB News Jan 25th, 2012

Judicial support for pre-nuptial agreements continues

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.

Sarah Jackson
Make an Enquiry

Recent Stories

  • Assessing mental capacity during lockdown
  • Deed of Variation: changing a Will after death
  • What is the 7 year rule in Inheritance Tax?
  • Can a right of way be removed?
  • Charitable gifts and Inheritance Tax

Newsletter Sign-up

* indicates required

Share this article

You may also like...

  • Jan 11th, 2012
    Divorce – have you considered Collaborative Law?
    Read Article
  • Feb 15th, 2012
    A deathbed marriage
    Read Article
View All Related Articles

Get in-touch today

Contact Form

Left Column

Right Column

Centre

 
Sending
  • Bristol

    0117 905 5308
  • Bath

    01225 462871
  • Bradford on Avon

    01225 866541
  • Swindon

    01793 615011
  • Trowbridge

    01225 755656
  • Almondsbury

    0117 905 5308
Authorised & Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 636644)
©2021 BLB Solicitors | Terms | Privacy | Legal