Sandra Davis' Week: The fairness of Radmacher

In White and then Miller; McFarlane the House of Lords told us that a fair division of income and capital was the imperative; there was no place for gender discrimination in matrimonial finance; and need compensation and/or sharing were the three rationales for making an order.

The point of Radmacher is that post White and Miller; McFarlane what may be fair in one instance will not necessarily be universally fair. Hence back in 2006 Richard Todd spoke and wrote of "The Inevitable Triumph of the Ante-Nuptial Contract" [2006] Fam Law 539. As an aside his success in Radmacher was so complete that Mr Todd can now drop the word "ante". As for whether "contract" or "agreement" is the correct terminology that can await another blog.

In their speeches articulating how a nuptial agreement can alter what would otherwise be fair the Justices use the word "fair" and its derivations over 70 times. And yet the question remains following Radmacher ...

Read the full article here.