Author: Keith Docking

Following The Supreme Court decision in Radmacher -v- Granatino it is fair to say that a properly drafted pre or post nuptial agreement is more than likely to be upheld by a divorce court. That does not mean however that it is binding on the Court. Until Government legislates to say that these agreements are binding (presumably with certain safeguards for example ensuring children are properly supported) then they are going to be capable of challenge. The key when drafting an agreement is try to ensure that when they are scrutinised down line that they are attractive to a Judge. Certain tips might be to, for example, provide full financial disclosure, make sure each party has the benefit of legal advice and to provide for the other parties needs. It would be tough to defend, for example, an agreement that gave a party nothing after a long marriage.

Are these agreements only the domain of the rich and famous? Whilst it may be inappropriate to have a pre-nuptial in all cases, the following maybe examples where they should be considered:-

(a) significant pre-marital assets;
(b) second marriage;
(c) business assets including a business that has been in the family for a number of years;
(d) inheritance or future inheritance;
(e) where there are children of a previous marriage.

In the absence of an agreement excluding these assets from divorce they all go in the pot and the Court then decide how to divide the same.

For further information about our family services or to discuss a particular matter or situation in more detail, contact our lawyers Marilyn Bell or Keith Docking at our St Albans office by email at marilyn.bell@salaw.com or keith.docking@salaw.com or on 01727 798066.

© SA LAW 2011
Every care is taken in the preparation of our articles. However, no responsibility can be accepted to any person who acts on the basis of information contained in them. You are recommended to obtain specific advice in respect of individual cases.

Author: Keith Docking

The suggestion in some quarters that Alex Reid could be entitled to a third of Katie Prices estimated  fortune of 50m is fanciful . whilst Mrs Miller in a high profile divorce may have secured 5m from a reported fortune of 30m after circa 2 years of marriage this had much to do with the fact that a significant proportion of 30m came in during the course of the marriage. I doubt that is the case unless Katie had a particularly good year in 2010! I would hazard a guess at enough to buy a decent house and a modest lump sum.

Should you require any specific advice on matters raised in this article, please contact the Family Law Team at SA Law on 01727 798000, or email keith.docking@salaw.com

Author: Keith Docking

German newspaper heiress Karin Radmacher successfully defended a claim by her former husband Nicolas Grantino where he challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a pre-nuptial agreement.

The Supreme Court decision in the Radmacher case appears to have shifted the law to a position where a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement will be upheld unless it can be shown to be unfair. Thus we have moved away from the agreement being a circumstance of the case, albeit a “magnetic one”.

This will place huge emphasis upon the drafting of these agreements. If you understate the provision to meet the needs of the financially weaker party you will still (potentially) fall foul of the court refusing to uphold on the ground that the outcome is manifestly unfair. Having said that, in Radmacher the Supreme Court were, it could be said, hardly generous in their interpretation of the husbands needs. Would the outcome have been the same if the roles had been reversed?

This case has attracted much media attention, but whether pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements become the norm for marrying couples other than the very wealthy, only time will tell.

Author: Keith Docking

Katie Price’s marriage to Alex Reid so soon after his exit from Big Brother house begs the question whether they had sufficient time to enter into a pre-nuptial agreement – given that generally such an agreement should be signed at least 21 days before the marriage.

All maybe not lost however, as a post-nuptial agreement could afford some protection. This pre-supposes that the new Mrs Reid considers protection of her significant wealth to be necessary.

Author: Keith Docking

The recent Court decision where a wife 22 years after separation received a lump sum of £220,000 is a salutary lesson for parties who do not finalise their financial affairs post separation.  The Court decision reinforces the principle that the needs of the parties will always take preference over contribution arguments.  In this case the majority of the assets were derived from an inheritance received by the husband post separation.  This emphasises the importance of entering into an agreement and ensuring that the agreement will be binding.

Please click here to view the article that appeared in The Times, If you’re interested in learning more about this case.

Author: Keith Docking & Marilyn Bell

In this article Marilyn Bell and Keith Docking look at the recent high profile of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills divorce and ask what lessons can be learnt from this case.

One of the major issues of contention in the Mills/McCartney divorce was Paul McCartney’s wealth. As has been well documented. Heather Mills claimed he was worth £800 million and the Judge found he was worth “only” £400 million. The Judge was invited to look at Heather’s claim purely in terms of needs generously applied.

This concept of need in cases involving the super rich does cause some consternation to the average person in the street. For example, Heather sought £499,000 per annum for holidays, but was “only” allowed £150,000 by the Judge. These matters were of course all relative when Paul’s expenditure set out before the court exceeded £4 million a year. The Judge, therefore, when coming to his figure of £16.5 million plus various properties which gave a total of £24.3 million, had assessed what lump sum Heather required to meet her financial needs in the future.

The other main headline maker in relation to this case was Heather’s decision to dispense with her legal team and represent herself.

(more…)