Granatino v Radmacher [2010]
Share
Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42 revolved around the validity of an anti-nuptial agreement that stipulated neither party should benefit from the other's property, which was signed prior to the marriage of a French investment banker and a wealthy German national.
Before their marriage, the wife's family requested the signing of an anti-nuptial agreement, in which both parties agreed to forgo any interest or benefit from each other's property, whether acquired before or during the marriage. Despite having two children, the couple divorced after nine years, and the husband sought ancillary relief against the wife's assets.
The husband argued that he should not be bound by the agreement due to his lesser wealth compared to the wife, and he had not obtained independent legal advice. He contended that anti-nuptial agreements were against public policy, citing MacLeod v MacLeod [2010], as they create pressure on the financially weaker party, exclude the jurisdiction of the court unfairly, and should be a matter for legislative action rather than judicial recognition. The wife asserted that no legislation prohibited such agreements, emphasizing the parties' freedom to determine how their assets are held. She contended that the husband willingly entered the agreement and should be bound by its terms.
The Supreme Court held that the anti-nuptial agreement was valid, rejecting the notion that such agreements were inherently contrary to public policy. The court recognised that, if freely entered into with full information and without pressure, anti-nuptial agreements should be upheld, unless doing so would be unfair. The decision signified a departure from the previous stance and acknowledged the enforceability of properly executed anti-nuptial agreements, providing parties the autonomy to agree on the distribution of their assets.
Before their marriage, the wife's family requested the signing of an anti-nuptial agreement, in which both parties agreed to forgo any interest or benefit from each other's property, whether acquired before or during the marriage. Despite having two children, the couple divorced after nine years, and the husband sought ancillary relief against the wife's assets.
The husband argued that he should not be bound by the agreement due to his lesser wealth compared to the wife, and he had not obtained independent legal advice. He contended that anti-nuptial agreements were against public policy, citing MacLeod v MacLeod [2010], as they create pressure on the financially weaker party, exclude the jurisdiction of the court unfairly, and should be a matter for legislative action rather than judicial recognition. The wife asserted that no legislation prohibited such agreements, emphasizing the parties' freedom to determine how their assets are held. She contended that the husband willingly entered the agreement and should be bound by its terms.
The Supreme Court held that the anti-nuptial agreement was valid, rejecting the notion that such agreements were inherently contrary to public policy. The court recognised that, if freely entered into with full information and without pressure, anti-nuptial agreements should be upheld, unless doing so would be unfair. The decision signified a departure from the previous stance and acknowledged the enforceability of properly executed anti-nuptial agreements, providing parties the autonomy to agree on the distribution of their assets.
