(Family Division; Coleridge J; 16 December 2005)  1 FLR 856
The matrimonial property had been purchased by a company owned by a family trust based in Guernsey during the parties engagement and prior to their marriage for their occupation under a tenancy arrangement. The husband was the grandson of the trust settler and was now the sole beneficiary.
In terms of ongoing provision for the husband and wife during their marriage, it was hard to think of any arrangement that was more ongoing than the provision of a matrimonial home. The intervening tenancy arrangement did not alter the character and true legal relationship between the husband and the trustee such that it was no longer capable of being a nuptial settlement. The purchase of the property and its subsequent use throughout the marriage constituted an anti-nuptial settlement capable of variation pursuant to s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.