Our Blogs

Johnny Gannon thought he’d live happily ever after following his marriage to Jamaican national Patricia Chambers. The 57 year old charity worker was left heartbroken, however, when his new, 24 year old bride left him only 20 minutes after having arrived at his flat in Perth, Scotland. The couple met two years ago whilst Johnny was holidaying on the Caribbean island and a romantic relationship ensued. Johnny then made regular trips back to Jamaica and following Patricia having suggested marriage, they tied knot during a ceremony in her home country earlier this year. Upon returning to the UK, Johnny immediately began applying for a visa for his new wife, paying for her to fly to the UK following it having been granted. As soon as Patricia arrived at Johnny’s modest council flat, she immediately sent her husband out for groceries. He returned 20 minutes later only for Patricia to inform him she was leaving him before leaving the flat and attempting to flag down passing cars on the street. Johnny has since informed the Daily Mirror that he believes that Patricia fled to Bristol in order to meet up with a Jamaican boyfriend who had helped her organise the scam. Not only does Johnny have to deal with heartbreak, though, he also has to handle the fact that he will now be unable to divorce Patricia for at least two years. In accordance with Scottish law, an individual that wishes to divorce their spouse must prove that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. Now, considering that Johnny’s wife left him within 20 minutes after arriving at would have been the couple’s matrimonial home you may think this this criteria has already been fulfilled, unfortunately, this is not the case. You see, in Scotland an individual is required to prove that their marriage has broken down for one of five reasons: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion or because the couple have been separated for a period of one or two years or more. Two and five year separation cannot be relied upon for obvious reasons – the couple having only recently separated – but it would still appear that any of the other three reasons could be relied upon and Johnny granted a divorce. This, owing to technicalities, is not the case. It would appear that adultery was suitable because Patricia fled in order to meet a Jamaican boyfriend. Such a claim would not succeed for a number of reasons, though. Firstly, in order for a divorce on the grounds of adultery to be granted, the respondent must admit to having had sexual intercourse with a person other than their spouse during their marriage. Most importantly of all, the respondent’s adultery must be the reason why the couple separated. As Johnny and Patricia actually separated as a result of Patricia choosing to leave, a divorce filed on the grounds of adultery would not succeed. Leaving your new spouse in such unceremonious circumstances certainly constitutes unreasonable conduct, but judges are notoriously pernickety when reviewing such reasons and it is therefore advisable that anyone applying for a divorce quotes at least four separate examples on their petition.  What’s more, any example of unreasonable behaviour quoted needs to have taken place during the marriage. As there only appears to be one instance of unreasonable behaviour, it is highly unlikely that Johnny would be granted a divorce if he filed on these grounds. Filing on the grounds of desertion is highly problematic and is rarely done as a result. It would also be necessary for Johnny to wait at least two years until he could file on these grounds meaning that, provide Patricia consented to a divorce, it would be quicker for him to file on the grounds of one year separation. Alternatively, if Patricia did not consent to the divorce, then Johnny could file on the grounds of two year separation and avoid the difficulty of having to prove that Patricia had deserted him. Even when the time comes when Johnny can file for a divorce, he will need to locate Patricia in order to serve her with the relevant documentation. This will inevitably lead to him needing to enlist the services of a private investigator, thus accruing further costs on top of £5,000 he is already reported to have spent on Patricia. All in all, then, Johnny is married to Patricia for at least one year whether he likes it or not and should Patricia attempt to gather further monies from him when he initiates divorce proceedings, may find himself subjected to financial as well as emotional hardship.

The growth of secularisation has seen religion's influence wane significantly in recent times. Malta recently became the last European nation to legalise divorce despite steadfast opposition from the influential Roman Catholic Church. The Filipino government also recently announced their intentions to discuss reintroducing divorce legislation to the country – a proposal that has been met with significant opposition from religious leaders – and should these discussions prove successful, then the Philippines will become the last major nation to recognise divorce. Whilst religion’s influence on everyday life has lessened, however, religion still exerts significant influence on the world of divorce and individuals who follow any religious doctrines should be aware that, in many instances, they will be required to obtain a religious divorce as well as a civil one. Most denominations of Christianity are tolerant of and allow divorce, but the Catholic Church will not allow a divorcee to remarry unless they have had their marriage annulled internally. This form of annulment is granted solely by the Catholic Church and a couple requesting an annulment will be required to attend a tribunal ran by the church during which the couple’s eligibility for religious annulment will be decided. Should the couple be granted an annulment, their marriage will have ended in the eyes of the church only and the couple will remain legally married until they obtain either a civil annulment or divorce. Divorce is permitted in Islam – though it is widely frowned upon – and is regarded as the legal means of dissolving what is viewed as a legal contract. In order to divorce legally, followers of Islam that live in the UK will still be required to obtain a divorce via the UK courts. They will also have to engage in separate procedures governed by Sharia law in order for their divorce to be recognised by Islam and allow them to remarry within this religion, however. These procedures differ as a result of both the applicants’ sex and to which Islamic denomination they belong. Husbands are required to inform their spouses of their intentions to divorce them (Shi'ite Muslims must do this in the presence of two witnesses) and then wait for a period of three months before the divorce is validated. The couple can reconcile during these three months, but the divorce will be granted if the husband indicates that he still wishes to divorce his wife following this the period having ended. Alternatively, if a wife wishes to divorce her husband, then she is required to wait for a period of one month before her application is placed before a Sharia judge who will then declare whether or not a divorce should be granted. Critics of Sharia law often argue that these laws are in need of reform as they unjustly favour male applicants. The Council of Islamic Ideology recommended that these procedures be reformed in November 2008, but these plans were shelved when the Council’s proposals were severely criticised by Islamic traditionalists. Judaism takes a somewhat lenient approach to divorce and recognises that it is ultimately better for a couple to separate and dissolve their marriage than live together in matrimonial disharmony. Like other religions, though, a civil divorce alone will not be recognised by Jewish law and divorcing couples are required to adhere to certain procedures in order to obtain a Jewish divorce. In accordance with Jewish law, a husband must instruct a religious scribe to prepare a document, known as a get, which states that the couple are now divorced. Once the husband presents this document to his wife and she, in turn, accepts the document, the couple are, in the eyes of Jewish law, divorced and allowed to remarry. Should the wife refuse to accept the get, then the divorce will not go ahead. The husband can, however, seek permission to remarry provided that he receives the approval of one hundred rabbis. Unfortunately, a wife whose husband refuses to issue a get is afforded no such recourse and she will remain married to her husband until a get is issued. Jewish feminists have pointed out that many husbands use this to demand money or other items from their wives before issuing gets, liking such behaviour to ransom. Other religions, including Hinduism and Sikhism, allow divorce under certain circumstances and will allow remarriage provided that one of the acceptable reasons for divorce – outlined within the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 – have been satisfied. Buddhists view marriages as entirely secular and a Buddhist can remarry within the religion provided they have obtained a civil divorce prior to remarrying. If one spouse does not agree to assist their partner in obtaining a religious divorce, then they can – provided they have also filed for a civil divorce – make use of the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002. This act allows the courts to postpone the production of a decreed absolute until it is satisfied that religious aspect of the divorce has been finalised.  In order to file for such assistance, the applicant will need to file an affidavit with the court following their decree nisi having been granted. It is strongly advised that any individual that intends to make such an application seek legal advice before doing so.

The need for divorcing couples to arrive at amicable arrangements concerning childcare and contact often breeds conflict. Many parents have conflicting ideas on what is best for their children and, with emotions running high, mothers and fathers often forget that the needs of their children are, ultimately, what should come first. In an attempt to redress this problem, the majority of divorcing parents in the US are required to attend parental education programmes designed to assist them in managing their relationship during and after divorce and increase their awareness of the effect that their actions can have on their children. These classes have seen their fair share of criticism, however, with the programmes’ detractors claiming that there is little evidence to show their effectiveness and that public funds could be put to better use as a result. A recent study centred on a programme based in San Francisco entitled ‘Kids Turn’ – which has been operating since 1988 and requires divorcing parents and the children affected by the divorce to attend six separate sessions – sheds some light on the benefits of the programme. In order to gather the information required to undertake their study, researchers asked their subjects to provide feedback on their mental health, relationship with their children/parents and on co-parenting conflict both before and after the course. Their outcomes showed that the additional education did indeed benefit those who attended. Following completion of the programme, parents reported significantly less conflict with their partners as well as reduced parental alienation. Reduced levels of stress and depression amongst both parents and children were also highlighted. These results indicate that parents who attended this course are less likely to argue with one another during their divorce and that they are more likely to engage in positive communication with their children, both of which are certain to be highly beneficial to children of divorce. The report noted that there was no change in parent-children relationships following the programmes completion, but this does not detract from the study’s other positive findings. What do you think? Would the UK benefit from the introduction if such programmes? Please leave a comment below.

News Corporation and many of its employees have seen their reputations tarnished and their careers left in tatters as a result of the recent phone hacking scandal. One group has, however, avoided becoming embroiled in the media frenzy despite them having been very much involved, however: private investigators. This isn’t terribly surprising. Private investigators are regarded, after all, as masters of deceit capable of gathering sensitive information without causing commotion or arousing suspicion. As a result of these covert methods, however, very few of us know anything about private investigators – least of all when we may need to hire one. Unsurprisingly, potential divorcees provide private investigators with a significant amount of business. What is surprising is the number of individuals that hire such individuals. In 2007, the Guardian reported that half of all divorces in the UK in 2006 were filed after one party had hired a private investigator to check on their spouse. Owing to the reduction in peoples’ disposable incomes, this figure is likely to have fallen somewhat in recent years, but as it still may be necessary for those considering divorce to employee a private investigator, it’s important that people know when they may need such an individual as well as where to find one that is both reliable and reputable. Many people that hire private detectives do so because they expect infidelity on the part of their spouse. Divorce petitions that rely upon adultery will become contested unless the respondent spouse admits to the adultery. If the respondent is unwilling to admit to any wrongdoing, then the divorce will become contested and the petitioner will need to obtain proof of adultery. A private investigator could choose to visit their client’s partner directly in order to obtain this information, or they may choose to observe them in secret, making a note of where they go, where they sleep and so on. Alternatively, they could gather other pieces of evidence such as letters, diaries or photographs in order to prove that the respondent is being unfaithful. Individuals filing for a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour may also require a private investigator to prove the accuracy of their allegations if the respondent contests the application. Unreasonable behaviour which may need to be proven could include alcoholism, extra marital sexual activity that does not constitute adultery and domestic abuse but this is by no means a complete list. A private investigator will gather the evidence required in order to prove the accuracy of any allegations of unreasonable behaviour that may have been put forward. Even if the reasons for divorce are straightforward and the respondent’s consent is not required, it may be necessary to locate an estranged spouse as their residential address is required in order to file for divorce and a private detective can assist with this. Many people also hire private investigators in order to ensure that their spouses have fully disclosed all information about their assets prior to commencing divorce proceedings, that they have no prior convictions or to ensure that a resident parent is adequately caring for a couple’s children following divorce. Any individual that is considering hiring a private investigator should remember that these individuals are not regulated by any external body, however, and that many will utilise illegal methods in order to obtain the required information. More worrying still is the fact that whilst there are over 10,000 private investigators working within the UK, only 1,200 appear on the data protection register. Fortunately, a large number of private investigators that operate within the UK are members of The Association of British Investigators. Established in 1913, the ABI are endorsed by the Law Society of England and Wales and insist that its members are honest transparent and law abiding at all times. Any investigator that does not adhere to these rules will simply not be granted membership of the association. A list of investigators with ABI accreditation at the association’s website: www.theabi.org.uk. Any individual that is considering hiring a private investigator – whether it be for a divorce or any other matter – should request that the investigator outline precisely how they will go about obtaining the required information before opting to enlist their services in order to ensure that they will act in both an appropriate and ethical manner. It is possible to investigate matters unassisted, but it would be worth remembering that being directly involved in the situation can distort your findings. If your investigations concern a divorce, then engaging in investigations can also bring about significant emotional discomfort or maybe even grief. Combine these with the fact that a private investigator will be able to gather the information that you require far quicker than a layperson and it becomes clear that, in some instances, hiring a private investigator is the best option.

It is now easier to obtain a divorce than a driving license senior judge, Sir Paul Coleridge, claimed during an interview with the BBC yesterday. Part of me can’t help but feel that his comments have been misinterpreted somewhat. Obtaining my full driving license was a laborious and unforgiving task – it took me no less than four attempts. Procuring my provisional license, in comparison, was a doddle. I contacted the DVLA and in less than one week, I was the proud owner of a green plastic card emblazoned with a less than flattering picture of my 17 year old self. Still, regardless of Mr Justice Coleridge’s true intentions, it cannot be denied that his comments were both crass and offensive. Irrespective of the teenage frustration that came with discovering that I had once again failed in my attempts to turn my green license into its more desirable pink version, not even my questionable teenage judgement led me to believe that my emotional turmoil was in any way comparable to that which my parents had suffered during their divorce – finalised 15 years before I had so much as turned a wheel in anger. Lambasting the divorce process utilised within the UK, Coleridge claimed that securing a divorce involved little more than filing forms and asked for the government to reform laws in order to protect the institution of family and bring about a close to social ills such as truancy, drug addiction, child abuse, and bad behaviour in schools - failing to consider the fact that other social, economic and historical factors almost certainly also create such problems. What reformations would Coleridge like, exactly? His comments suggest that he would like all would-be divorcees to undertake tests before they’re afforded the right to divorce. A standard written theory test, followed by a more practical examination where an individual visits your home, observes you and your spouse interacting with one another and then determines whether or your situation is dire enough to warrant divorce, perhaps? I can imagine it now: “sorry sir but I can’t grant you a divorce today. You’re clearly trapped in a loveless marriage, but that’s only a minor according to my marking criteria. Better luck next time.” All in all, what Coleridge (who has been married for 38 years and never experienced divorce himself) seems to have forgotten is that no process which brings about such a glut of negative emotion can ever be considered simple. Furthermore, it is all too easy for a man of aristocratic stock and expensive education to deem a legal process to be simple; few laypeople that attempted to navigate the murky waters of divorce unassisted would agree with his assessment. So, rather than spend vast amounts of taxpayers money on commissions charged with the task of reforming family law in the UK, why not employ scientists to develop glasses lenses that allow an individual to see the world in black and white. That way, the government saves money and Coleridge can pretend it’s still the 1950s – everybody wins!

You may or may not be aware of the recent changes in Chinese divorce law. The alterations to the rules which govern the division of property following a divorce did not receive a great deal of coverage within the UK – the Telegraph being the only paper to report the changes – in spite of their importance and the fact that many are likely to feel that legislators in the UK should consider making similar changes to our own laws.

Essentially these changes mean that, following a divorce, the matrimonial home will be retained by the spouse that purchased the property. On the face of things, this is a sensible and just ruling. Unfortunately, though – as I have previously stated in comments placed on other websites – in my opinion, it is an oversimplified framework and certain to result in gender disparity.

Firstly, the ruling fails to take into account the fact that spouses often contribute to the cost of a mortgage even when their name does not appear on the household deeds. What’s more, this new ruling seems to presume that it is only financial contributions that see a couple retain their marital homes. In actuality, even if one half of a marriage makes no monetary contribution to the relevant monthly payments, they will, more often than not, be contributing in other ways.

Consider, for example, how the domestic tasks completed by a housewife on a daily basis can assist her working husband. The fact that the husband returns home at the end of a working day with very few, or even no household chores to complete is of great assistance. It allows him to relax when at home and this is likely to result in him performing better at work the following day.

This improved performance can lead to better stability in employment or even promotion and an increase in his wages – both of which will assist the couple in both retaining and maintaining their property and obtain new possessions. The fact that these new laws could be seen as sexist – with husbands generally owning the marital home – has not been helped by comments from Chinese officials that support the ruling with them having claimed that these new laws are necessary to curb the increasingly materialistic nature of the country’s female population.

We at Quickie Divorce believe that this new ruling is insufficient and, dare we say it, slightly sexist.

Still, others are likely to have different viewpoint and we therefore encourage you to share your opinions with us; it could lead to a lively and interesting debate.

In December 1977, New York couple Phillip and Frances Ragusa’s divorce was finalised with Phillip being ordered to pay Frances $14,393.57 in child support. Unfortunately, Phillip failed to provide Frances with this payment and, following her having discovered that this judgement was still enforceable in 2002, Frances began to pursue her former husband for this payment which, as a result of interest, now stands at $100,000. The case led Mrs Ragusa to contact her former husband for the first time in several years in the hope of resolving matter. “I begged him to settle,” she told the New York Post, going on to add: “don’t let this case go to trial, because I'm going to win punitive damages.' I told him, 'There is a legal judgment, and if you think I'm going to forget it, Phil, you're stuck on stupid.” Mr Ragusa was not interested in settling, however, and upon hearing his ex-wife’s voice began crying before hanging up. Mrs Ragusa remains undeterred, however, and last month gave a deposition in the case at Brooklyn Supreme Court informing the paper that: “I want justice, that’s all. My family did not deserve what he and the system did to us”. Legal disputes between the couple began in 1987 following Mr Ragusa having sold the couples former family home for $350,000. Mrs Ragusa claims that she was owed £87,000 from this sale, yet received nothing. She also informed the paper that the negative feelings she harbours also stem from the fact that she needed to rely in welfare payments for a short time following the couple’s divorce. Her lawyer, John Russo, informed the Post that this was one of the most bizarre cases he had ever dealt with. "There's no doubt that this is an oddball case. A judgment so old is not usually enforceable, but with a child-support judgment, it is.” Mrs Ragusa is also currently in the process of suing her mother in law’s estate which – following her death in 2009 – is currently administered by Mr Ragusa.

A man who was married to his partner for less than one year has been granted a divorce by the Australian family courts following the presiding judge having declared that he had been “under duress” when agreeing to wed and subsequently marrying his partner. Reports have indicated that the unnamed couple had been engaged in an on-off relationship for six years prior to their engagement and that the man had previously told his girlfriend that he wanted to separate. In response to this, the woman informed him that she was pregnant with his child and that she would not terminate the pregnancy unless he agreed to marry her. The couple wed two months later. When applying for divorce, the man referred to a section of the Australian marriage act which states that a union is void unless both parties freely consent to the marriage, claiming that he felt that he had to marry the woman in question in order to ensure that she terminated the pregnancy. The man further informed the courts that he would not have married the woman in different circumstances and that neither party had informed their parents of the marriage. The man’s ex-partner declined the opportunity to provide evidence at the hearing and Justice Peter Rose declared: "With some hesitation, I have concluded duress has been established by the husband due to the unchallenged facts which led to him entering into the marriage." Recent statistics have shown that one in every three Australian marriages end in divorce, though the divorce rate has fallen steadily in recent times following the country’s divorce rate having peaked in 2001.

Sources have recently indicated that the Canadian government is considering reforming its divorce act to ensure that parents are afforded joint custody of their children following a divorce, news which has led Quickie Divorce to ask: should the UK also consider such changes? This suggestion is, unfortunately, highly impractical. Joint custody arrangements are fraught with difficulty and become all the more problematic when children are young. Nevertheless, we here at Quickie Divorce can’t help but think that a few changes to the way in which custody arrangements are formulated during divorce proceedings. Experts frequently advocate the positive effects that frequent contact with both parents can have on children of divorce, yet complaints concerning the conduct of family courts’ and their tendency to oversimplify matters – often to the detriment of fathers – remain rife. The recent behaviour of Prime Minister David Cameron has served to further exacerbate such individual’s grievances. Not only has he reneged on promises to reform family law policies, but an article he recently wrote lambasting absent fathers could quite easily be seen as vitriolic and failed to consider the many and potentially complex reasons why a father may be denied access to his children. Research, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and undertaken by the Oxford University Centre for Family Law and Policy, allegedly indicated that there was no evidence to suggest that the courts were biased against fathers This report failed, however, to consider potential bias on the part of family reporters or expert witnesses despite the fact that these individual’s submissions will significantly influence a judge’s decision. Nor, for that matter, did it address the fact that contact orders issued by the court are not monitored or the relative ease with which they can be ignored as a result. We at Quickie Divorce frequently hear from parents that are being denied access to their children through our sister company Custody Online. Whilst there is a general assumption that such individuals are denied access with good reason, our experiences suggest otherwise. In the majority of cases the non-resident parent is being denied contact by an embittered former partner. On other occasions, former partners threaten to prevent contact in order to obtain additional child support or because the non-resident parent wants to introduce their children to their new partner; matters that require discussion, certainly, but in no way valid reasons to deny a parent access to their children. In short, current legislation concerning family law within the UK is clearly flawed. Granting both parties joint custody immediately following a divorce is unlikely to be the answer, but with it being all too apparent that agreements concerning contact with children are in need of alteration, ensuring that clearly defined and enforceable agreements are in place following a divorce having been concluded would go a long way towards ensuring that children enjoy adequate contact with both parents and vice versa.

No one singular act is quite as capable of extinguishing the love and trust needed within a marriage as adultery. Victims of adultery are likely to feel betrayed and unloved whilst perpetrators will often find themselves battling immense guilt, and possibly depression, due to the damage their disloyalty has caused. But why do people commit adultery? Scientists at Charles University in Prague recently put forward their own theory - it's hereditary! A study of 86 married couples revealed that men were more likely to 'play away' if their fathers had done the same regardless of whether or not they were happy in their marriage. Women were not influenced by their parent's fidelity, however, and were only likely to engage in an affair if they were extremely unhappy in their marriage. These findings will not surprise many. We all know that we are socialised from a young age and having witnessed, or even only being aware, of their father having committed and act of infidelity is likely to effect a male adult's perceptions of what is and what is not acceptable. Also, many would argue that the manner in which we procreate results in men being biologically predisposed to adultery. With men being capable of fathering many more children than a woman could give birth to throughout the course of her life, human physiology dictates that men will crave more sexual partners because of a subconscious desire to breed. On the other hand, isn't it reasonable to argue that men have evolved beyond this? That as an evolved and intelligent species we should be aware that it is not necessary to persistently procreate in order to ensure the survival of our species? There are currently several billion people populating this planet and breeding is the last of our problems. In fact, we're constantly told that overpopulation is causing us no end of problems. The research also revealed, however, that men are still likely to engage in extramarital relations even when they also reported that they were happy in their marriage. Women will more than likely only be unfaithful if they are extremely dissatisfied with their marriage, suggesting that there may be some validity to theories rooted in biology and genetics. Still, I can't help but feel there's more to it than that. The stigma that comes with engaging in an act of infidelity has mellowed greatly in the last few decades and whilst such an act would have seen its perpetrator ostracised in the fifties, such an act is now far more likely to be condoned; in fact, it may well be encouraged. Type 'adultery' into Google and amongst the obligatory links to pages containing marital advice and Wikipedia articles, you will find others offering access to online communities specifically designed for married individuals seeking affairs. Such sites are hardly subtle, either. With names such as http://www.illicitencounters.com, http://www.nostringsaffairs.co.uk and http://www.lonelyhousewives.com it isn't hard to work out just what these sites are offering. Cheating partners can even now rely on a mobile phone app that immediately deletes call and texts from a specific number in order to hide their infidelity from their spouse. So, not only is adultery now more socially acceptable, technology is also making it much easier to find an extra marital partner and then hide your actions from your current partner. Changing attitudes, developing technology and biology aside, affairs ultimately take place because one half of a couple decide that such an act will make them happy. Ironically, this happiness is likely to be short lived before it gives way to guilt and anguish - feelings that will only be exacerbated by the marital problems, and likely divorce, that are likely to follow any act of adultery.

Hollywood star Mel Gibson and his estranged wife Robyn have reached an agreement with regards to financial settlement and now expect to finalise their divorce in August according to reports. Robyn originally filed for divorce from the 55 year old actor in 2009, though it is widely believed that the couple’s marriage came to an end as a result of Gibson’s now infamous arrest for drink driving in 2006. The actor is reported to be worth £500 million and owns a number of luxury properties and a Fijian island. The settlement is said to include provisions for such properties, though no further details of the agreement have been released. The couple, who married in 1980, had seven children together, though only Tommy, born in 1999, is under 18. Gibson, whose previous credits include ‘Braveheart’ and ‘Lethal Weapon’, was issued with a three year probation following a battery charge concerning the actor and his former partner, Oksana Grigorieva, in March of last year.

A survey conducted by UK insurance company MORE TH>N has revealed that 55 per cent of men would be willing to marry a woman for financial security alone.

The poll also showed that women are now more inclined to protect their finances with 29 per cent stating that they would consider asking their husband to be to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before marriage and 14 per cent saying that they considered such a pact to be absolutely essential.

This may come as a surprise to some readers in the UK. Pre-nuptial agreements are far from uncommon in both the US and continental Europe. Within the UK, however, they tend to be viewed as preserves of celebrities and the wealthy. In fact, pre-nuptial agreements have generally not been considered to be enforceable under UK law, though this particular fact has become a matter of contention in recent times; all thanks to a German heiress and her investment banker husband.

Katrin Radmacher, the successor to her family’s £100 million fortune, and French investment banker, Nicolas Granatino, signed a pre-nuptial agreement, which stipulated that neither party would benefit financially should they divorce, prior to their wedding in 1998. At first glance, this agreement seemed entirely reasonable. Granatino was relatively well off, the son of a wealthy French industrialist, he also earned £300,000 per year from his employers JP Morgan.

In the latter stages of the couple’s marriage, however, he left JP Morgan and began studying for a doctorate in bio-technology at Oxford University; a position that provided him with only 10 per cent of his original salary. The couple later separated in 2006 and, unsurprisingly, Granatino challenged the aforementioned agreement. Initially succeeding, he was awarded a £5.6 million settlement from the high court. Much drama then ensued in both the court of appeal and supreme courts with this figure later being reduced to £1 million as a lump sum in lieu of maintenance – effectively enforcing the agreement that the couple had signed in 1998 and setting a new precedent within the field of British law.

This does not mean that any pre-nuptial agreement prepared within the UK will be enforceable, however. The nine Supreme Court justices declared that in the right circumstances, a pre-nuptial agreement can be fitting and therefore persuasive.

The President of the Supreme Court did add, though, that courts would still have the power to overturn or waive any agreement if it believed it was right to do so, particularly if it was likely to have an adverse effect on any children of the marriage. In other words a pre-nuptial agreement can be overturned for any number of reasons and, generally speaking, it would be advisable that any individual that wishes to rely on such an agreement ensure that it is reasonable and addresses any possible issues concerning maintenance and childcare.