Latest Prenuptial Agreement Cases

Regarding the woman`s request for $400,000 for her legal costs, Mostyn J noted that, according to him, under the framework of S.22ZA MCA, the principles of Currey v. Currey [2006] EWCA Civ 1338 could only pay compensation if he was satisfied that the woman could not reasonably obtain legal services without her. It also implies that she convinced herself that she could not get credit. Mr. Mostyn J indicated that the purpose of the procedure also needs to be examined. Mostyn J. considered that the woman`s application was "extremely speculative" and that she could obtain a loan, albeit with great interest. As a result, she did not receive legal service. The husband accepted that, if the wife`s right to a financial remedy was found to be meritorious, he should take repayment of the interest on a loan she had taken out. The husband, however, received 75% of his expenses (it was not 100%, because, although the husband succeeded, he made his position just relatively late in the day). To sum up, as Mostyn J. said, "the law has a strict policy that requires the demonstration of something unjust before it opens the Pandora`s box where there has been such an agreement." Pre-marital agreements are now clearly a valuable method of preserving both the autonomy of a couple and protecting assets in the event of an unexpected, and despite promises made in happier days, one party decides to legally challenge the other.

The Commission will publish its report on property, needs and marital arrangements on 27 February. As the rumor mill is working overtime and some newspapers are already suggesting that the report contain recommendations that pre-contract agreements should be enshrined in law, the family`s lawyers (and their clients) will observe this space… Facts: After the marriage failed, husband (H) asked for a financial provision against his wife (W), although he signed a pre-marital agreement, not to claim it. However, as the outcome of the S/H case shows, every effort should be made to meet the above requirements, in order to give the marriage agreement the best chance of being remanded in custody and, in all cases, to address the issue of needs and fairness. The case is of interest to London divorce lawyers, as it deals with family trusts and marital agreements in divorce proceedings. Finally, a very recent case in England, S V H [2020] EWFC B16, serves as a useful warning and reminder of potholes that may occur.