Spotlight
Court of Protection Practice 2024
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articlesrss feeds
A seismic change in ethos and practice
Caroline Bowden, a member of the Private Family Law Early Resolution Working Group which first examined what changes were needed, looks at the effect of the revised rules on everyone working in family...
Debunking the myth about sensitivity in drug and alcohol testing
*** SPONSORED CONTENT***With all the news about deep fakes, authentication and transparency in the news at the moment, Cansford Laboratories Reporting Scientist Jayne Hazon has examined a recent...
New Family Presiding Judges Appointed
The Lady Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has announced the appointment of two Family Presiding Judges.Mr Justice MacDonald has been appointed for a period of four years,...
Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform
Innocent people who have suffered miscarriages of justice, personal harm or injury are among those who will benefit from upcoming changes to legal aid means testing coming into effect this...
Obligations and responsibilities – the mosquito in the bedroom
Stephen Wildblood KC, 3PB BarristersLuke Nelson, 3PB BarristersWhatever happened to ‘obligations and responsibilities’ in s 25(2) MCA 1973?  Why is it that all of the other words in...
View all articles
Authors

Pre-Nuptial Agreements: For Better or For Worse?

Sep 29, 2018, 17:06 PM
Title : Pre-Nuptial Agreements: For Better or For Worse?
Slug : pre-nuptial-agreements-for-better-or-for-worse
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Check Copyright Text : No
Date : Nov 6, 2009, 10:48 AM
Article ID : 85831

Robert H George, Lecturer in Law, Jesus College, University of Oxford
Peter G Harris, Research Associate, Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy, DSPSW, University of Oxford
Jonathan Herring Fellow and Tutor in Law, Exeter College, University of Oxford

In Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649, [2009] 2 FLR (forthcoming) the Court of Appeal nodded approvingly towards proposals put forward by Resolution (the family law solicitors' group) for giving greater recognition to agreements made by couples before their wedding or civil partnership about how property and future income should be distributed in the event of a divorce or dissolution (see Thorpe LJ at para [27], Rix LJ at para [83] and Wilson LJ at para [122](v)). In its report A More Certain Future: Recognition of Pre-Marital Agreements in England and Wales, Resolution proposed that s 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) be amended by adding a direction to the court to have regard to:

'... any agreement entered into between the parties to the marriage, in contemplation of or after the marriage for the purpose of regulating their affairs on the breakdown of their marriage, which shall be considered as binding upon them unless to do so would cause significant injustice to either party or to any minor child of the family.'

That reform, it is claimed, would help reduce the cost, conflict and uncertainty caused by the current law which, following White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2000] 2 FLR 981 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618, [2006] 1 FLR 1186 requires the court to achieve fairness when dividing up the marital pot following a divorce. The idea sounds attractive in its simplicity but will it really improve matters or might it make them worse? To begin to address that issue, some questions need to be answered.

To read the rest of this article, see October [2009] Family Law journal.

To log on to Family Law Online or to request a free trial click here.

Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from