Judgment has now been given in the case of Radmicher and Granatino. The Supreme Court has decided by a majority that the Court of Appeal in its earlier decision that the husband should be held to a pre nuptial agreement made by the Parties.

The outcome of this case has been long awaited, and was expected to provide a very clear guideline as to where the law was going in relation to pre nuptial agreements.

It was held that the Court of Appeal was correct to reach a conclusion, that there were no special factors in this case, which would make it unfair to hold the husband to the agreement that he had reached.

It has not been the case that it has been held that pre nuptial agreements should, as a matter of law, always be binding upon the Parties. Ultimately this type of decision is one for Parliament and for legislation.

It is now, however, increasingly likely that the Court will give it due weight to an agreement freely entered into by each Party, fully appreciating the implications, unless it would be clear in the circumstances not to be fair to hold them to the agreement.

It very much seems that the Party would have to argue that a pre nuptial agreement should not be taken into account, rather than arguing that it should, which is a significant shift in the balance.

The bar seems to be getting lower all the time; when it comes to persuading the Court that a pre nuptial agreement should be taken into account.

Pre nuptial agreements therefore are going to become increasingly important. These are not agreements just to enable millionaires to protect their assets, but are important for example, for second marriages, where there are assets from a first marriage, which one Party may wish to preserve for the future benefit of children.