Tonight:
4°c
Senior judges in London will be asked tomorrow to uphold a pre-nuptial agreement signed by a wealthy American couple who divorced after 10 years of marriage.
As the first case of its kind, it will be watched anxiously by an increasing number of couples who want to know whether the courts will enforce agreements they may have signed many years ago. Because the couple live in the Isle of Man, their appeal is to a little-known court in Downing Street called the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Though not part of the English legal system, it consists mainly of serving law lords, and its rulings are generally treated as binding by courts throughout Britain.
The appeal is being brought by a 64-year-old man against a ruling in favour of his estranged wife, now 42. They were still married to their first spouses when they began a somewhat stormy relationship in 1988. The couple split up several times, becoming formally engaged twice before marrying in 1994 when they were 49 and 27 respectively. They moved a year later from Florida, where the wedding took place, to the Isle of Man, and had five children.When the marriage broke down in 2003, they began divorce proceedings under Manx law.
The couple had signed their pre-nup on the day of their wedding, arranging for the signing to be videotaped. Their agreement would have been binding if they had been divorced in Florida. It was amended twice during the marriage, the final occasion being in 2002 when their relationship was already breaking down.
Under the 2002 variation, the husband was to give his wife a half-share in a house and £250,000. He agreed to make other payments during the marriage and to give his wife £1 million, adjusted for inflation, in the event of a divorce.
During the Manx divorce proceedings, the wife argued that she had been pressurised into signing the various agreements, maintaining that her husband had not fully disclosed his assets and that she had not received adequate legal advice. She claimed £5.6 million. The husband said he was not required to pay her any more than the £2 million previously agreed, though the gap between the two figures narrowed during negotiations.
After a hearing, the Manx judge, or deemster, rejected some of the wife's arguments but did not regard the amended pre-nup as decisive. Two senior deemsters later dismissed the husband's appeal, ruling that an agreement was just one matter - though a "very important" one - for a court to consider in reaching its own assessment.
Before the Privy Council this week, the husband will again maintain that his pre-nup, as varied, is valid. The wife will say it is not - and that the judges should not change the law.
What the law lords will be asked to decide is whether a pre-nup, properly agreed, should be "presumptively dispositive of a subsequent claim for ancillary relief" - in other words, upheld by the courts.The law firm Withers, which is not involved in the case, regards this as an opportunity for the Privy Council to bring the United Kingdom into line with countries throughout the world that recognise and uphold pre-nups.
Suzanne Todd, a partner in the Withers family team, said it was the first time since 1929 that a court of this level has had an opportunity to lift the block on enforcing pre-nups. It was, she added, "a chance for the Privy Council to acknowledge the evolution of social values and decide whether couples can take control of their own destiny in the event of a divorce".
For nearly 80 years, pre-nups have been regarded as unenforceable on grounds of public policy. In a few weeks' time, we shall know whether that law has changed.
