Pre-nuptials could become binding after Shackleton loses appeal
Share
The UK courts could be forced to recognise the binding powers of pre-nuptial agreements following a judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal today.
German heiress Katrin Radmacher went to the Court of Appeal to fight a High Court ruling that found she should pay over £5.8m to her ex-husband, despite him agreeing in a pre-nuptial contract not to make a claim to her fortune should they divorce.
The husband, Nicolas Granatino, turned to Payne Hicks Beach partner Fiona Shackleton (pictured), who instructed Nicholas Mostyn QC of 1 Hare Court, to protect his claim to her wealth.
Radmacher instructed Ayesha Vardag of Ayesha Vardag Solicitors, who in turn instructed heavyweight Richard Todd QC of 1 Hare Court to fight her ex-husband’s claim.
Radmacher’s appeal was upheld. The judgment handed down by Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Wilson is the clearest signal yet that English and Welsh courts should take pre-nuptials as binding documents, as they already are in Germany and France.
Thorpe LJ ruled: “Due respect for adult autonomy suggests that, subject of course to proper safeguards, a carefully fashioned contract should be available as an alternative to the stress, anxieties and expense of a submission to the width of the judicial discretion.”
In April, the Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by a husband to renegotiate a divorce settlement. The case - Myerson v Myerson -, saw Hare Court’s Martin Pointer QC represent Bryan Myerson in his bid to lower the settlement agreement (1 April 2008).
Mostyn, representing Mrs Myerson, had the case thrown out with Thorpe LJ warning those wanting to renegotiate: “They would be well advised to heed the warning that very few successful applications have been reported.”
That case has now gone to the House of Lords and judgment is pending.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 9:28 am
The Law Commission has been fluffing about for more than a decade on pre nups. Society is more sophisticated, why shouldn't people be able to sort out their financials in advance. Having a good quality pre nup is better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sarah Anticoni Charles Russell | 3-Jul-2009 9:36 am
We’ve been holding our breath for this judgment, it is particularly important for overseas nationals…it goes as far as the court is willing to go…Statute needs to change now. There is a groundswell of support for it, not just from multi millionaires but generally a greater desire for people to organise their finances.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alison Hawes TLT | 3-Jul-2009 9:58 am
There is a political tension between England and the rest of Europe on divorce laws. We apply English law while the rest of Europe would like us to use the law from the country of origin. English courts will only apply English law to provide English justice. This judgment means that lawyers with international clients will need to be careful about two things- foreign pre nups are now much more persuasive in the English courts and put your clients in the right country to bring the right case. In France or Germany he would’ve got nothing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 10:04 am
Historically we would advise clients that pre nups are not worth the paper they are written on in London’s divorce courts. This judgment will change all that- particularly for international clients.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 10:06 am
Lawyers are often blamed for hyping up big divorces, but as this judgment shows the judiciary has done all that it can on pre nups and lawyers are crying out family laws to be modernised. It is not our fault that we are working in an out of date system.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 10:31 am
Well done to Ayesha Vardag. She’s not someone you would normally consider a heavy weight in family circles, but they’ll all be seeing her in a totally different light now. The real star here is Richard Todd, this case shows exactly what hiring a good barrister can do. Has he knocked Mostyn off his perch at the top of the tree? Myerson will decide that. This is the first real big case Ayesha has had and she has stood on a few toes and managed to upset the usual family big wigs- Shackleton included. All credit to her and to Mr Todd. Well done!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 10:49 am
Does this mean that London is n longer the divorce capital of the world? I doubt it. There will always be people who are willing to challenge the law. It does mean that I'll be signing a pre-nup before I get married in August! I want some of my billionaire wife's cash...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3-Jul-2009 5:22 pm
This was inevitable and this is only the start of accepting Pre-nups.
But the issue is why now of all times, certainly not the EU, but due to inherent sexual discrimination against men.
Historically about 20 years ago , males exclusively worked and earned money and any pre-nup was created by the male ina stronger position.
Now about in the last 15 years females have been in the workforce and some have made fortunes.
The reason why UK did not look at pre-nups was due to unequal status but generally to protect females rights.
Now more males are suing for funds accrued during marriage , the situation is now being reassesed.
If one looks back , it will show that if males earned money then pre-nups were ignored, but a female is now being sued , ?????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Jul-2009 5:56 pm
Richard Todd QC did a great job for me and more to the point is a really lovely guy. Friendly, reaasuring and frighteningly clever! He stood by me in a very difficult matrimonial case and was someone who I had utter faith in - I would always recommend him.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Jul-2009 1:45 am
About time the gravy train ground to a halt. it has always been a pretty safe investment for someone to marry a very rich person. Just hang about for a few years, suffer rhe marriage until a convenient time then egineer a divorce and cash in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment