Tonight:
5°c
Heiress’s £100m divorce tests UK pre-nuptial law
Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter21 Apr 2009
A GERMAN heiress is taking her ex-husband to court to enforce a pre-nuptial agreement that would leave him without a penny of her £100 million.
The landmark legal case will determine if the agreement, which was signed in Germany, is valid in the English courts.
If Katrin Radmacher, a paper industry heiress and one of Germany's wealthiest women, is successful it would pave the way for pre-nuptial contracts to become legally binding under English law.
Ms Radmacher, 39, claims her former investment banker husband, with whom she has two young children, has not honoured the pre-nuptial deal they signed before they married in 1998.
She has accused him of trying to cash in on her family's wealth. An earlier High Court hearing ignored her pleas and awarded her 38-year-old French ex-husband Nicolas Granatino a lump sum of £5.6 million.
The couple met in Tramp members' nightclub and married in Britain in November 1998, setting up home in South Kensington. A few months earlier they signed a pre-nuptial agreement, recognised in both Germany and France, in which they agreed neither would make a financial claim against the other.
When they married, Mr Granatino was a banker with JP Morgan earning as much as £324,000 a year while his wife was running a fashion boutique with her sister in Knightsbridge.
In 2003, he quit his job to pursue a doctorate in biotechnology at Oxford, the move coinciding with the breakdown in their marriage.
They separated in 2006, by which time Mr Granatino was earning as little as £30,000 a year. Ms Radmacher has accused him of deliberately delaying his doctorate to “maximise his claim”. She believes that if he “wishes to be an academic he must live as such”, rather than enjoy a millionaire's lifestyle funded by her.
But at a hearing in the High Court in July, judge Mrs Justice Baron ruled that it would be “manifestly unfair” to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nuptial contract and ordered Ms Radmacher to pay her ex-husband £5.6 million one-off compensation. Mr Granatino had been demanding just over £9 million.
Ms Radmacher, who has since returned to Dusseldorf where the children go to school, will go to the Court of Appeal next week to overturn that ruling in a case that has cost more than £1.1 million in legal fees.
Mr Granatino has hired divorce lawyers Fiona Shackleton and Nicholas Mostyn QC, the legal team which represented Sir Paul McCartney in his divorce from Heather Mills.
Divorce lawyers are watching the case with interest. London has enjoyed a recent boom in divorce cases, prompted in part by the number of wealthy couples who choose to live here and a string of landmark hearings that have made it favourable for poorer spouses to receive huge pay-outs.
Most experts believe that Ms Radmacher is unlikely to succeed in the case.
Julian Lipson, head of the family law department at Withers law firm, said today: “The English courts pride themselves on protecting the financially weaker party and that will over-ride the argument that the financially weaker spouse knew what they were signing and should be held to the bargain, even if it is a bad one.”
Reader views (11)
This is a fair ruling as the husband is not a banker any
longer,with earnnings of 30K,and does not have get to
see his kids,also the british law should be upheld
in this case.
- Z.Z.Zond, Lake Okanagan Canada, 27/04/2009 16:46
Report abuse
Mr. McGowan, for the simple reason that it would be discriminatory for the English court to treat other nationals differently. Where do you draw the line. Reading the case, it also seems that the children have been removed to Germany (probably against the will of the father). This would have not been possible in France shortly after the separation and given the shared residence order. But the English relocation law applied, not the French one...
- Reply Mcgowan, Paris, France, 21/04/2009 17:28
Report abuse
Why are our courts entitled to tear up an agreement which was fully enforceable under the laws of two sophisticated liberal European jurisdictions with highly-developed legal systems? This is simply our judiciary arbitrarily confiscating someone's assets and telling the courts in France and Germany that they know best. The fact that she happens to be rich is entirely irrelevant. Rich people have rights too.
- Michael Mcgowan, london uk, 21/04/2009 16:20
Report abuse
I notice he did't divorce her in his native France, where he would get a really bum deal.
I thought the basic premise in the UK is that anything you owned before marriage is yours, and there should be equal division of anything which accrued after marriage. So it seems that they are not arguing over her fortune, but over how much maintenance she should pay him. If he isn't looking after the kids and is able to earn a living, why should he get more than a fair division of the matrimonial assets accrued in marriage?
- Roz, France, 21/04/2009 15:42
Report abuse
This is about German Law being affected in this country, not the financial aspect of the dispute.
Our courts should have no legal jurisdiction over a pre-nuptial agreement signed in Germany as any Legal contract would in Germany signed here.
It would become an unbelievable free for all. BTW, are any of these parties receiving Legal Aid?
- Frank, Home Counties, England., 21/04/2009 15:38
Report abuse
Bound to be made into a film. The Lady and the Tramp!
- Colin Larcombe, Orléans, France, 21/04/2009 15:29
Report abuse
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Enough women have walked away with up to 50% of their husband's wealth - the same rules should apply. Or are they only relevant when they favour the female?
- Londonken, London, 21/04/2009 15:09
Report abuse
I find it amazing how multi-millionaires of either sex; are as mean as misers when they fall out of love; they tend to behave like spoilt selfish children.
This woman for instance would still have £95 million left to live on; which she will never spend it all, anyway.
Then of course the interest on her remaining £95 Million, will soon replace the odd £5 million she lost to her ex husband in her divorce etc; so in time nobody loses a single penny etc; they both end up with more than they will ever need.
The man is the father of her children after all; much like she is the mother of his children as well; had the wealth roles been reversed, he would at least be expected to see that his ex was well provided for etc.
Like it or not; ‘’Sexual Equality’’ goes both ways, or it’s not true equality of any kind, at all.
The more money people have; the more they become slaves to it; the tight selfish childish gits.
Money is the route of all evil; and as long as you have food, clothes, and a home; that is all anyone really needs.
- Mickyinlondon, london, 21/04/2009 13:40
Report abuse
I think the expression cultural imperialism" is a bit rich, frankly. Our Courts should be free to interpret the law as they see fit and not be bound by agreements that are, with respect, not commercial arrangements of the kind to be found in trading.
Moreover,Ms Radmacher's advice is unknown to us, so it might just be the case that her lawyers have told her the appeal is doomed to fail or has little prospect of success but she has ignored it and chosen to appeal, as is her right.
- Steven Dale, London, England, 21/04/2009 13:02
Report abuse
This has nothing to do with protecting the financially weaker party. As usual, the English courts are allowing him to cherry pick the parts of the marriage that still work for him (i.e. the economic ones) even though the marriage has come to an end and even though he signed a clear pre-nuptial agreement. He is not a poor man and other jurisdictions should be outraged at the cultural imperialism of UK courts riding roughshod over agreements fairly negotiated and freely entered into.
- Michael Mcgowan, London, 21/04/2009 11:20
Report abuse
Had the husband had the fortune, the court would have given the woman £50 million. Ms Radmacher should have been happy she only had to pay £5.6million. She has received incorrect advice to challenge the initial decision. UK family law is however totally flawed
- Once Bitten, |Surrey,, 21/04/2009 10:43
Report abuse
