header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Radmacher: Pre-nups enforceable

Pre-nuptial agreements are legally binding, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark ruling on divorce.

The judgment in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 this week substantially alters the law of divorce in England and Wales. This is the first time that a pre-nuptial agreement has been held to be enforceable.

The court found in favour of Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress, who sought to protect her millions by signing a pre-nup in 1998 that stipulated neither party would benefit financially if the marriage broke down.

Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, emphasised that the courts would still have discretionary powers to waive any pre-nup or post-nup, particularly if it was unfair to a couple’s children.

Simon Bruce, head of the family team at Farrer & Co, who acted for Radmacher, says: “This decision means pre-nups are binding as long as they are fair.

“Pre-nups are like a form of fire insurance—better taken out before the event rather than after it. Everybody hopes their marriage will last a lifetime. From today we are allowed to prepare for the possibility that it might not be the case.  “This judgment is pro-marriage. Good pre-nups will keep couples together if they marry for love, not money. It holds for cohabiting couples, too.”
 

Issue: 7438 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll