Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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