Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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 articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

Radmacher: What Practitioners Need from the Supreme Court

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : radmacher-what-practitioners-need-from-the-supreme-court
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 5, 2010, 12:16 PM
Article ID : 87677

ANDREW MEEHAN, Senior Solicitor, Mills & Reeve

The appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2009] EWCA Civ 649, [2009] 2 FLR 1181 is due to be heard, as at the time of writing, by the Supreme Court towards the end of March 2010. Not only will the decision represent the highest profile ancillary relief case to be heard by the Supreme Court so far since replacing the House of Lords but the decision will also generate vast interest by virtue of its topic alone, namely the enforceability of pre-marital agreements.

Readers of Family Law will be familiar with the background facts of the Radmacher case itself, set out in the first instance decision of Baron J, reported as NG v KR (Prenuptial Contract) [2008] EWHC 1532 (Fam), [2009] 1 FLR 1478 and in the Court of Appeal's decision. Both decisions were reviewed in detail in 'Analyse This: Radmacher v Granatino' [2009] Fam Law 816 and commented on in a number of articles since then including 'Pre-Nuptial Agreements: For Better or for Worse?' by R George, P Harris and J Herring [2009] Fam Law 934 and by E Hitchings in 'From Pre-Nups to Post-Nups: Dealing with Marital Property Agreements' [2009] Fam Law 1066 being notable examples.

The purpose of this article is to consider, in advance of the hearing before the Supreme Court, some of the practical issues raised by the Court of Appeal's decision and the particular issues on which guidance from the Supreme Court in its decision would be helpful to practitioners and to clients.

To read the rest of this article, see March [2010] 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