An announcement in the Supreme Court this week has found a previous decision by the Court of Appeal to uphold a pre-nuptial agreement was, in fact, correct.
Ms Radmacher, who is German and Mr Granatino, who is French, were married in London in 1998. At the instigation of Ms Radmacher, they entered into a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany three months before the marriage. The agreement was entered into because her family required that she do so before she could receive a further portion of a considerable inheritance. The agreement, which was subject to German law, provided that neither party was to benefit from the property of the other either during the marriage or if it ended. The agreement therefore was designed to prevent Mr Granatino being able to claim a share of this considerable sum of inherited money. The husband, who worked as a banker at the time did not take independent advice on the agreement.
In October 2006, the couple separated. By this time they had two daughters and Mr Granatino had decided to leave his career in banking to undertake research studies at Oxford. They divorced in this country, because they both had made their homes here and Mr Granatino applied to the court for financial relief within the divorce proceedings. He was granted a sum in excess of £5.5m in the High Court. This would have given him an annual income of £100,000 for life and have allowed him to buy a home in London which his children could visit. The judge took into account the pre-nuptial agreement but reduced the weight she attached to it, due to the circumstances in which it was signed. The judge was not forced to follow what had been set down in the pre-nuptial agreement because it was not binding on the courts in this country.
Ms Radmacher made a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal, which went on to find that the pre-nuptial agreement should in fact have been given decisive weight. This would mean the husband should only be granted provision for his role as the father of the two children, and not for his own long term needs. It is this decision that Mr Granatino appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court.
The main point of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
This does not mean that the court has ruled that pre-nuptial agreements are always going to be binding. However within current legislation, this judgment goes a long way towards that position.
For more information on any aspect of making a pre-nuptial agreement please contact James Haworth at Lawson-West on 0116 212 1080.
Ms Radmacher, who is German and Mr Granatino, who is French, were married in London in 1998. At the instigation of Ms Radmacher, they entered into a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany three months before the marriage. The agreement was entered into because her family required that she do so before she could receive a further portion of a considerable inheritance. The agreement, which was subject to German law, provided that neither party was to benefit from the property of the other either during the marriage or if it ended. The agreement therefore was designed to prevent Mr Granatino being able to claim a share of this considerable sum of inherited money. The husband, who worked as a banker at the time did not take independent advice on the agreement.
In October 2006, the couple separated. By this time they had two daughters and Mr Granatino had decided to leave his career in banking to undertake research studies at Oxford. They divorced in this country, because they both had made their homes here and Mr Granatino applied to the court for financial relief within the divorce proceedings. He was granted a sum in excess of £5.5m in the High Court. This would have given him an annual income of £100,000 for life and have allowed him to buy a home in London which his children could visit. The judge took into account the pre-nuptial agreement but reduced the weight she attached to it, due to the circumstances in which it was signed. The judge was not forced to follow what had been set down in the pre-nuptial agreement because it was not binding on the courts in this country.
Ms Radmacher made a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal, which went on to find that the pre-nuptial agreement should in fact have been given decisive weight. This would mean the husband should only be granted provision for his role as the father of the two children, and not for his own long term needs. It is this decision that Mr Granatino appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court.
The main point of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
This does not mean that the court has ruled that pre-nuptial agreements are always going to be binding. However within current legislation, this judgment goes a long way towards that position.
For more information on any aspect of making a pre-nuptial agreement please contact James Haworth at Lawson-West on 0116 212 1080.
