Ashley Murray's Case Analysis: Ante-Nuptial Agreements and the Sharing Principle post Radmacher: Z v Z [2011] EWHC 2878

Introduction:

What was abundantly clear from the Supreme Court's decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] was that until Parliament addressed the issue whatever the wording of an ante-nuptial agreement between the parties upon distribution on divorce the ‘needs level' of either party would continue to be protected under the s 25 statutory exercise. This first reported decision since confirms that position whilst at the same time also again highlighting the fact that where an ante-nuptial agreement is in being and is held to be material the effect of the same will be to limit or prevent (dependent upon the agreement wording) any additional recovery within the ‘sharing principle'.

The Facts:

H (53) and W (50) were both French and university educated. They had met in 1985 when H was working in his family's business and commenced cohabitation in 1990 in Paris. By then H was working for VCF and W having worked in the cosmetics industry was an advertising consultant. Between 1985 and...

Read the full article here.