For years now pre-nuptial agreements have been viewed as the preserve of the rich and famous. Tiger Woods’ cost him. Robbie Williams refused to marry without one. And poor Paul McCartney wished he’d had one. But now they could go mainstream. In the past British courts have treated pre-nups as ‘persuasive’ but not legally binding.
However, last week the Supreme Court upheld a pre-nup that protected German heiress Katrin Radmacher’s fortune from her ex-husband. That’s a big deal. “Previously, a Family Court judge could make a settlement without even looking at a pre-nuptial agreement. But now we know that judges will have to give it ‘decisive weight’, and, so long as it is fair, it will be binding,” says specialist family lawyer Andrew Greensmith in The Independent.
But don’t rush out and get one. Pre-nups aren’t cheap. While you can get a template online for just £199, to get one drawn up by a lawyer costs upwards of £5,000 in London. And if you are going to go to the trouble, and possible heartache, of getting a pre-nup, you want to get a good one. Odds are that the average lawyer could rip the £199 version to shreds.
The other thing to consider is that pre-nups still aren’t actually legally binding. In the Supreme Court judgement in the Radmacher case, paragraph 75 states: “The court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless, in the circumstances prevailing, it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.” So a lawyer worth his salt can challenge whether a pre-nup was freely entered into, ask if both sides understood, and failing that, announce that the whole thing was unfair.
Still, if you have a substantial amount of money and assets – enough that you don’t mind spending over £5,000 at the lawyer’s office – a pre-nup is definitely worth considering. It may still be challenged, but the chances of it being adhered to have vastly increased.