Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Read on

DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam)

Date:25 JAN 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Francis J, 22 December 2016)

Financial remedies – Jurisdiction – Prenuptial agreement – Prorogation – Married Women’s Property Act 1882

Orders were made in financial remedy proceedings including, inter alia, an order for sale of the matrimonial home pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

The Swedish husband and wife were married for 14 years and lived in the UK from 2009. Prior to the marriage the husband provided the wife with two pre-nuptial agreements which she signed in Canada and the USA. Pursuant to the agreements each party would retain the assets held in their own names and would have no claim on the other party in the event of divorce. The agreement also contained a clause proroguing the jurisdiction of the Swedish court. The wife received legal advice that she should not sign the second document which she chose to ignore.

When the marriage broke down the wife applied for all forms of financial relief and for provision under Sch 1 of the Children Act 1989. The husband applied for an order for sale of the family home pursuant to s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882.

The total assets available amounted to £10.86m including the family home, the only asset held in the joint names of the parties, which had equity of £1,819,533, a Swedish property, an equity portfolio and bank account.

The court held that both parties consensually entered into one or more prenuptial agreements and that at the time they were entered into, the effect of the agreement(s) was not vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or undue pressure. Further, both were clear that the agreements contained a Swedish forum clause. Therefore, the English court’s jurisdiction was confined to dealing with the rights in property arising out of the marriage. The wife’s maintenance claims had to be stayed and determined in Sweden.

The effect of the pre-nuptial agreement would leave the wife with £656,000. Applying the reasoning in Radmacher to the circumstances of this case, such a division would be unacceptably unfair to the wife and would adversely affect the best interests of the children. It would be wrong to disregard the agreement entirely. The housing needs of the wife and children could not be met from the net value of the wife’s share in the family home. However, the terms of the Maintenance Regulation prevented the court from ordering the husband to make a lump sum payment to the wife for the purpose of purchasing a property for herself and the children.

As regards the Sch 1 claim, a sum of £2m would be fair to meet the children’s housing needs including costs of purchases. That sum would be available until 12 months after the children ceased full time education. Periodical payments of £95,000 pa would be made to the wife in respect of a carer’s allowance for herself and the children. An order for sale pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 would be made and the net proceeds of sale divided equally between the parties.

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No: ZC15D00789
Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam)

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 22 December 2016



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



- and -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Patrick Chamberlayne QC (instructed by Sears Tooth Solicitors) for the Applicant
Martin Pointer QC and Peter Mitchell (instructed by Irwin Mitchell LLP Solicitors) for the Respondent

Hearing dates: 14-18 November 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


DB v PB [2016] EWHC 3431 (Fam).rtf
Family Court Practice, The
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2022 edition
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer"...
Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...