With this pre-nup I thee wed

Nine Supreme Court justices are currently considering a bitter dispute between a divorced couple that could settle once and for all whether pre-nuptial agreements can be legally binding. Sarah Perkins examines the growing appeal of pre-nups and the value they may have in the future.

There's no doubting the growing popularity of pre-nuptial agreements now that people tend to marry later when they're a little more worldly wise and have a lot more wealth to protect.

It's not just married couples. Cohabiting couples are also drawing up similar agreements and the latest news from America is that they're also becoming popular with dating couples.

People clearly want to protect themselves but how valuable are these pre-nups? In America and most of Europe they tend to be legally binding but in the UK the position is less clear. Until recently, the courts would certainly take them into account in the event of a dispute but would disregard them if the judge thought it appropriate.

This could happen if there were compelling reasons to doubt their viability. Doubts might arise if one party signed without getting proper legal advice or if someone failed to disclose all their assets when the contract was being drawn up. Getting someone to sign under pressure, such as the day before the wedding, would also be considered dubious.

The status of pre-nups took a major leap forward with the latest high profile case before the courts, that of wealthy German heiress Katrin Radmachr and her former husband, Nicolas Granatino, who is French. When they married they drew up a pre-nup saying that he would not make a claim on her money if they ended up divorcing.

The High Court decided that it would be unfair to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nup agreement and awarded him £5.8m from Miss Radmacher's fortune.

However, that ruling was then overturned by the Court of Appeal which cut the payment to £1m - a figure Miss Radmacher was prepared to accept. In giving his judgement after the hearing, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was becoming "increasingly unrealistic" for courts to disregard pre-nups. He believed that a "carefully fashioned contract" could provide a valuable alternative to the "stress, anxiety and expense" of going to court.

"There are many instances in which mature couples. perhaps each contemplating a second marriage, wish to regulate the future enjoyment of their assets and perhaps protect the interests of the children of their earlier marriages upon dissolution of a second marriage."

That ruling put pre-nups on a much stronger footing but now Mr Granatino has taken his case to the Supreme Court. He says he didn't know the full extent of his former wife's wealth when he signed the pre-nup and will suffer personal hardship if the agreement is upheld.

His lawyers argued that the Court of Appeal had created a revolutionary piece of legislation instead of applying existing case law. Miss Radmacher's counsel countered by saying that the court should uphold the principle "that people should not easily be able to escape their bargains".

The issue can evoke strong feelings on both sides but now that it's reached the highest court in the land we Can look forward to some clarity at last. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, its ruling will be final and have serious implications for pre-nups in the future.

If Miss Radmacher wins the case then pre-nups will have to be taken far more seriously by the courts and be considered legally binding, unless there are strong reasons to doubt their validity.

If Mr Granatino wins then the position will be less clear, but hopefully the court ill give some guidance when giving its judgment which will clarify the situation for the future.

The judgment is being reserved to a later date.

For more information please contact Sarah Perkins - family law expert on 0115 947 0641.

The law offers new hope to ‘heroic’ grandparents

Family breakdowns mean that grandparents sometimes have to suffer the heartache of being denied contact with their grandchildren. Now a Supreme Court ruling together with new legislation could help ease some of the pain, as Sarah Perkins explains.

It's a surprise to some people but grandparents have no automatic right to have contact with their children.

This means they can face a difficult battle if a family breakdown means they are denied access by a son or daughter-in-law or even in some cases by their own children.

Thankfully, help is in hand, both in the form of a recent landmark court case and proposed new legislation outlined by the Government in 'Support for All - the Families and Relationships Green Paper'.

Ministers want to make it easier for grandparents - described as "unsung heroes" by Children's minister Ed Balls - to seek contact with their grandchildren. As the law stands now, they have to get permission from a court before they can even start to make an application for contact.

The proposed new measures would remove that hurdle making the process easier.

Court action ought to be a last resort, of course. The first step should be to approach the parent who's being obstructive and try to reach an agreement. This can be difficult if they are feeling bitter after the break-up of a relationship but in time, most people will realise the value of their child having contact with the grandparents.

If that doens't work then mediation with the help of an independent mediator might help. However, both sides have to agree so it may not always be suitable.

Legal action may then become necessary, although there's a good chance the problem could still be resolved before you get to court. Once the application is made, family advisory officers from court agency CAFCASS may be appointed to examine welfare issues and prepare a report.

These reports are often strong enough to persuade the obstructive parent that contact would be good for their child. If not, the matter is likely to be decided by the court, who usually follow the recommendations of the CAFCASS officer.

If the court decides in favour of contact with the granparents then the parents will have to comply.

There was also good news for grandparents when the Supreme Court rules that a four-year-old boy should live with his grandmother rather than his father.

The boy's parents seperated before he was borb and he had lived all his life with his grandmother. Three years later, the father applied for a residence other. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a child's welfare must take precedence over the interests of the biological parents.

Lord Kerr said: "He has lived virtually all of his young life with his grandmother. He has naturally formed a strong bond with her. There is reason to apprehend that, if the bond is broken, his current stability will be threatened."

Each case must be taken on its individual maerits, of course, but this ruling together with the Green Papre should give granparents confidence that the tide is turning in their favour and that their role in their grandchildren's lives is highly valued.

For more information please contact Sarah Perkins on 0115 988 6718.