Prenuptial agreements are becoming increasingly common.
Once regarded as something associated mainly with celebrities and the very wealthy, they are now increasingly seen as a sensible way for couples to discuss their financial arrangements before getting married.
But an important question remains:
If we sign a prenup, does it mean the court will simply enforce it if we divorce?
A recent High Court decision, IC v AD [2026] EWFC 224, provides a useful reminder that the answer is: not quite.
A £26.6 Million Marriage
The case involved assets worth approximately £26.6 million. The parties had entered into a prenuptial agreement which provided that the wife would receive assets worth approximately £2.8 million on divorce.
The agreement was upheld and played a very significant role in determining the outcome. But the wife ultimately received approximately £3.13 million.
Why?
Because the court concluded that the terms of the prenup did not quite meet her needs. That difference is important. The prenup was not ignored. Far from it. It was treated as the starting point and governing framework. But it did not prevent the court from making an additional award where necessary to meet the wife's needs.
Prenups Are Not "Iron-Clad"
The Supreme Court's decision in Radmacher v Granatino remains the starting point.
A properly negotiated prenuptial agreement will generally be given substantial weight where it was freely entered into, with both parties understanding its implications, and where it would be fair to hold the parties to it.
But a prenup does not remove the court's statutory discretion. The court remains required to consider the factors in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, including the parties' needs, resources, standard of living, contributions and the welfare of any children.
That is particularly important where the agreement leaves one spouse without sufficient resources to meet their reasonable needs.
Needs Can Still Override the Numbers
In IC v AD, the court effectively adopted the prenup's intended financial framework but then carried out a separate needs assessment.
The wife was assessed as having reasonable spending needs of approximately £13,000 per month, with a separate provision for the children. The judge capitalised her future spousal income requirement at £1 million.
That additional provision resulted in a final award of approximately £3.13 million.
Importantly, the judge did not treat this as an invitation to redistribute the husband's wealth generally. The wife did not acquire a share of his other assets, including his future partnership interests. The remainder of the financial arrangements reflected the prenup and resulted in a clean break.
This is perhaps the most useful way to understand prenups: They can substantially limit a future financial claim, but they cannot necessarily eliminate the court's obligation to address needs.
Why Are Prenups Becoming More Popular?
There are good reasons for the growing interest in prenuptial agreements:
- Protecting pre-marital wealth
Someone entering a marriage with substantial savings, a business, inherited wealth or property may want greater certainty about what happens if the marriage ends.
- Protecting family wealth
Parents may be particularly keen to ensure that family wealth intended to pass from one generation to the next is not unnecessarily exposed to future financial claims.
- Second marriages
People marrying later in life may have accumulated significant assets, pensions and business interests and may also have children from previous relationships. A prenup can help clarify expectations and reduce uncertainty.
- Certainty
Perhaps the greatest attraction is simply knowing what the starting position will be if the marriage breaks down. Divorce is stressful enough without having to litigate every financial issue from scratch.
But There Are Downsides
Prenuptial agreements are not a magic wand. A poorly drafted agreement can create uncertainty rather than remove it. There is also a danger of focusing too heavily on protecting assets at the expense of what happens to the financially weaker spouse if circumstances change.
People have children.
Careers change.
Businesses fail or flourish.
Illness can occur.
A couple who were financially independent when they married may have a very different financial relationship ten or twenty years later.
A sensible prenup should therefore anticipate change rather than simply attempt to freeze the parties' financial positions on the wedding day.
Fairness Still Matters
One of the important themes running through the modern law is autonomy. Adults should generally be entitled to decide how they wish to organise their financial affairs. That is why the courts increasingly respect properly entered-into prenuptial agreements. But autonomy is not absolute.
The court ultimately retains a responsibility to achieve a fair outcome, particularly where children or genuine financial needs are involved. IC v AD demonstrates that balance perfectly: the court respected the parties' agreement, but did not allow it to prevent a proper assessment of the wife's needs.
So, Should You Have a Prenup?
There is no universal answer.
For someone entering a marriage with substantial pre-marital wealth, a business, inherited assets or children from a previous relationship, a prenup may provide valuable protection and certainty. For others, it may add unnecessary complexity.
The important point is that a prenup should not simply be something presented to a future spouse shortly before the wedding with a request to "sign here".
The circumstances in which it is negotiated matter enormously. Both parties should have the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, understand the agreement and enter into it voluntarily.
It should also be reviewed if circumstances change significantly.
The Bigger Picture
The law has moved a long way from the days when prenuptial agreements were regarded as having little or no legal significance in England and Wales. Following Radmacher and subsequent authorities, a carefully prepared agreement can carry considerable weight. But IC v AD provides a useful reality check.
A prenup can shape the outcome. It can protect wealth. It can limit a sharing claim. It can provide valuable certainty. But it cannot necessarily contract out of the court's responsibility to meet genuine needs.
That is perhaps the best reason for obtaining specialist advice before signing one. A good prenup is not about trying to predict the future. It is about making sensible financial arrangements today while recognising that life—and marriages—can change.
