Family Law Hub

Marital Agreements

Latest updates

  • High value financial remedy appeal where the main focus was the judge's finding that he was unable to determine the value or future liquidity of the major business asset and his decision to make a so called Wells order. The court also addressed the impact of a pre-marital agreement, non-matrimonial assets and the sharing principle. Lord Justice Lewison, in the third judgment, makes some interesting points in relation to the difficulties in valuing private companies. The appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 11/05/2018, free
  • A pre-nup agreement was signed by the wife against the advice of her solicitors. The court ruled that the pre-nup and the issues of fairness and needs should be taken into account when deciding on the size of the award in favour of the wife. Judgment, 20/04/2018, free
  • The wife and husband were both Swedish. It was a long marriage of 21 years, there were 2 children of the marriage and the assets were worth nearly £11m. The existence of 3 pre-nuptial agreements meant that the wife lost her sharing claim. It was also impermissible for the court to make a maintenance order by reason of the Maintenance Regulation and she had to fall back on a Schedule 1 claim until such time as the Swedish court either determined the maintenance claim or declined to hear it. Judgment, 25/01/2017, free
  • Extracted from Ministry of Justice annual report News, 12/01/2017, free
  • A pre-nuptial agreement was upheld after a short marriage, the judge rejecting the wife's allegation of anal rape which the wife argued would be sufficient to undermine a prenuptial agreement and cause the court to consider fairness in a different light. Judgment, 11/11/2016, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Fairness and needs key factors in determining W's award Case note, 15/05/2018, members only
  • Republished from the Dictionary of Financial Remedies 2017. This is the first of a set of Practice Notes adapted from the book that is available to paying Hub members. This one is free to view for now as a sample. You can read more about the book and order a print copy at Practice note, 05/05/2017, free
  • In a tweet: Achieving fairness in the face of an unfair PNA and where EU Maintenance Reg ties the English courts hands Case note, 02/02/2017, members only
  • In a tweet: Family Court upholds the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement, in circumstances where the marriage lasted only 12 weeks Case note, 23/12/2016, members only
  • Judgment from Mostyn J in 'ancillary relief' proceedings involving consideration of whether a trust created for the matrimonial home was a nuptial settlement. Case note, 08/10/2014, members only

Latest training

  • Webcast recorded on 22 January at 1pm. Lysney Cade-Davies and Petra Teacher of 29 Bedford Row review some of the leading cases of 2014 and highlight the lessons for the year ahead. Webcast, 22/01/2015, members only
  • Questions relating to the webinar first broadcast on 27 March 2014 CPD course, 09/04/2014, members only
  • Nigel Shepherd & Caitlin Jenkins of Mills & Reeve look at the recommendations made in the recent Law Commission report and the impact they may have on practice now. Webcast, 28/03/2014, members only
  • Six questions, worth an hour of CPD, on the cases of W v W [2012] EWHC 2469 (Fam), T v T [2012] EWHC 3462 (Fam) and TC & JC (Children: Relocation) [2013] EWHC 292 (Fam), which were published in February 2013. CPD course, 05/03/2013, members only
  • Jonathan Tod looks at the impact that the guidance in Radmacher has had on the advice clients' need when seeking a pre-nuptial agreement. Webcast, 16/10/2012, members only


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item