Prenuptial Agreement Uk Law Essay

In considering the outcome of the case, it is clear that the Supreme Court justices did not reach a unanimous decision, with Lady Hale rejecting the decision as a guiding principle. The truth is that all pre-marital agreements are governed by the so-called “2” principle, but until recently their status was considered totally invalid by the fact that they were considered totally ineffective for public policy reasons. 3 The key question, therefore, is what approach the Court should take in the event of different agreements, as not all agreements will be equal. In the cases of Miller 4 and White 5, it is stated that it must be “recognized that the test to be applied to ancillary procedures is the test of fairness, and the three areas of the need to identify compensation and sharing… 6 Problems arise when “the agreement contains provisions contrary to the requirements of fairness.” 7 This led the majority to accept that “the Court of Justice should implement a marriage agreement… unless it is not fair, in the present circumstances, to keep the parties to the agreement” 8 Baroness Hale expressed a different opinion and preferred to work the test in the other direction. She asked: “Did each party feel like they were reaching an agreement… If so, in the circumstances as they arise, would it be fair to keep them at their approval? 9 The situation is therefore quite different if the Court includes it by finding that the circumstances of the marriage can change so easily, which means that the weight of the agreement could be reduced or increased depending on the circumstances. Conclude with your conclusions on whether pre-marital agreements undermine marriage. Get your own essay from professional authors. We have experts on every subject. Removing much of the weight taught in the agreements could reduce the cost of divorce and ensure the safety of both parties. According to the principle of sharing equality 19, the wealthiest people were more cautious when it came to entering into marriage, with some people even refusing to marry to protect their wealth.

The facts of the Radmacher case also show who agrees in a country that would make it mandatory, and then come to England and Wales to get married. Before this case, it was said that English law was not in order at the international level, and the same could be said today, since all agreements are still governed by principle. Both the Court of Appeal and the Radmacher Supreme Court raised the issue of autonomy and expressed their concerns in accordance with the pre-marital agreements. – Consider the arguments for and against pre-marital agreements as binding and focus in particular on whether they undermine marriage. – You have to draw your point of view on marriage. Is marriage, for example, a partnership, a contract or something else? (For further explanation, see herring, family law, p.45). The main point of discussion of these agreements is when circumstances change and what should happen if they do. One of the talking points should be whether the circumstances should reasonably be unpredictable or not, as if the circumstances were foreseeable, whether this should leave room for the parties to plan their events in advance. The government`s 1999 proposals were strongly criticized when they stated that any agreement should be derogated at the birth of a child, since the agreement should not be derogated if it had caused such an event.


Comments are closed.