A judge has upheld the terms of a prenuptial agreement despite describing it as “sub-optimal” and lacking clarity, reinforcing the courts’ willingness to respect validly signed prenups in England and Wales.
The decision arose in the High Court family case IC v AD, where the couple disputed the effect of their prenuptial agreement during divorce proceedings involving assets worth approximately £26.6 million. The litigation is reported to have generated more than £1 million in legal costs.
His Honour Judge Edward Hess concluded that both parties had entered into the agreement freely and rejected the wife’s argument that she believed it applied only to two properties owned by the husband before the marriage.
Although the judge criticised the drafting, stating it was “not a model of clarity”, he found no compelling reason to disregard the agreement other than the parties’ financial needs. The ruling follows the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Radmacher v Granatino (2010), which held that prenuptial agreements should generally be given decisive weight unless enforcing them would be unfair.
The judgment is significant because prenuptial agreements are still not automatically legally binding in England and Wales. Instead, courts assess each agreement on its fairness, the circumstances in which it was signed, and whether it adequately provides for the parties’ needs.
The decision also comes as calls continue for statutory reform. The Law Commission has previously recommended the introduction of legally binding “qualifying” nuptial agreements with appropriate safeguards, and the UK government has recently consulted on proposals to modernise the law.
Why this matters : For couples and family law practitioners, the case highlights that a prenuptial agreement does not need perfect drafting to carry substantial legal weight. However, clear wording, independent legal advice, and fair terms remain essential to maximise the likelihood of enforcement.
