Over 60 legal professionals gather for experts seminar

22nd November 2010 14:41

Over 60 legal professionals from across the region gathered for the seminar to listen to expert barristers Susan Jacklin QC, Andrew Commins and Jody Atkinson from St John’s Chambers in Bristol discuss the case and review its impact on the use of pre-nuptial agreements.  The barristers, who are experienced in the application of such agreements in the courts, examined the impact of the case on existing and new agreements, and considered the circumstances that could cause the courts to depart from an agreement, for example, the need to protect children’s interests. Discussing how prenuptial agreements are already legally binding in much of Europe and the US, Susan Jacklin QC said of the ruling: “There is a movement to conformity with the rest of the world, particularly Europe, given that the world is shrinking day by day.”

Chris Price, head of family law at Tayntons, said: "The high attendance to this seminar shows Radmacher v Granatino is an important case for advisors to digest. Traditionally the courts have shown that they will, in appropriate cases, take pre-nuptial agreements into account.  However the ruling from the Supreme Court now goes further, declaring that these contracts have ‘decisive weight’ when dividing assets during a divorce, setting a potential new precedent in case law.

“We expect that the high profile nature of the ruling may well encourage many more couples with normal assets to consider using a pre-nuptial agreement.  This is why we invited St John’s Chambers to give a seminar as it enables Gloucestershire practices and advisors to quickly and decisively digest the ruling, and respond to what may well be increased levels of client interest.”

Attendee Amanda Langsford, partner at Madge Lloyd & Gibson, said: “The seminar was excellent. The issues raised by the case have been covered in depth and the subject could not be more relevant; I’m discussing a pre-nuptial agreement with a client tomorrow.” Another attendee, Helen Meredith, partner at Treasures LLP, said: “In the past pre-nuptial agreements weren’t always worth the paper they were written on….This case shows that you don’t always need full disclosure or legal advice for an agreement to be binding.”

 Over the last decade judges in England and Wales have taken pre-nuptial agreements into account when ruling on the division of assets in divorce cases, but unlike in Scotland, they were never legally binding.  Traditionally seen as the preserve of the rich and famous, practices in Gloucestershire have seen an upsurge in recent years in requests for pre-nuptial agreements, and this trend is only set to continue following this ruling.

A recent survey by YouGov of over 2,000 respondents showed that 72% believed that properly drawn up pre-nuptial agreements should be recognised by UK courts.

Chris Price comments:  “It’s not surprising that the public generally supports these agreements. As Susan Jacklin QC said in her presentation, we are one of the few countries left to take this approach. In Australia, the US and many other European countries they already treat pre-marital contracts as legally binding.  In ruling in the Radmacher v Granatino case, the Supreme Court highlighted the reasonable criteria it believes validates an agreement, and we may well find that as long as these criteria are followed, it becomes sensible to expect, what is a professionally drawn up contract, to become legally binding.

Not only does the case create a new legal precedent, it has also grabbed the headlines and sparked national interest in pre-marital contracts.  Retailers like Harvey Nichols have proven keen to capitalise on this momentum with the launch of their own ‘off the shelf’ pre-nuptial package in one of their stores.

Chris Price explains why this may prove problematic: “An ‘off the shelf’ approach in this area of law is unlikely to work that well at the current time.  Despite affirming the role and legal value of pre-nuptial agreements, there are still many implications of the ruling which need to be clarified and applied to a couple on a case by case basis, rather than it simply providing a definitive recipe for a legally binding contract.

“The overall case for or against pre-nuptial agreements doesn’t end here.  The Law Commission is due to report in 2012 on whether a change in statute law should be made to ensure that pre-nuptial agreements are fully enforceable.  Some experts are already stating that this latest Supreme Court ruling appears to add significant weight to the argument in favour of them.”