radmacher Archives - James Thornton Family Law

25 March 2026

When a Prenup Gives More Than “Needs”: A Quiet but Important Shift – A v Z [2026] EWHC 654

The recent decision in A v Z [2026] EWHC 654 (Fam) offers a fascinating addition to the modern law on prenuptial agreements. At first glance, it appears orthodox: the court upheld a prenup. But look more closely, and it reveals something more nuanced—and potentially significant—about how far the courts are now willing to go.

The orthodox starting point: Radmacher v Granatino

Since Radmacher, the legal framework has been clear: A nuptial agreement freely entered into with full appreciation should be upheld unless it would be unfair to do so.

In practice, this has usually meant one thing: prenups are upheld, but subject to needs.

That principle was reinforced in cases like Brack v Brack, where the Court of Appeal made clear that—even with a valid prenup—the economically weaker party will ordinarily receive provision sufficient to meet their needs, but not a sharing award.

So far, so predictable.

What makes A v Z different?

In A v Z, the husband stood to receive:

A substantial housing fund
An income fund
Half the matrimonial home
And—critically—millions of pounds for shares in the wife’s family business

Those shares were:

Non-matrimonial in origin
Gifted during the marriage
Caught by the prenup as “separate property”

Yet the court still required payment for their transfer as part of achieving a clean break.

The result? The husband emerged with far more than a strict “needs-based” outcome.

Why did the court allow this?

Mr Justice Trowell’s reasoning is subtle but important.

The prenup was upheld—but not mechanistically applied

The agreement said each party should retain their separate property.

But the court recognised a practical problem:

The parties could not realistically remain shareholders in each other’s businesses post-divorce
A clean break required transfers of those assets

Once that step was taken, the court held it would be unfair not to compensate for the transfer.

In other words: the court adapted the mechanics of the prenup to achieve fairness—without abandoning it

No “needs cap” where fairness points higher

The wife argued strongly:

The husband’s needs were already met
The shares were non-matrimonial
Therefore no further payment should be made

The court rejected that rigid approach.

Instead, it emphasised:

Fairness is the ultimate objective
Needs are important—but not an absolute ceiling

This reflects a more flexible reading of Radmacher than is sometimes assumed.

No side agreement to neutralise the shares

A key factual dispute was whether the husband had agreed the shares were:

“an empty box” (i.e. valueless on divorce)

The court found no such agreement.

That finding was decisive:

The shares were legally his
They had value
And fairness required that value to be recognised

Where does this sit in the “pantheon” of prenup cases?

This case does not overthrow the established hierarchy—but it refines it in an important way.

Stage 1: Recognition – Radmacher v Granatino

Prenups are not automatically binding, but will usually be upheld.

Stage 2: Consolidation – Brack v Brack

Fairness typically limits awards to needs where a valid prenup excludes sharing.

Stage 3: Boundary-setting – Standish v Standish

Clearer delineation between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

Stage 4: Flexibility in application – A v Z [2026]

The court:

Upholds the prenup
Recognises non-matrimonial property
But still allows an outcome exceeding strict needs where fairness requires it

Why this case matters in practice

This decision highlights three key points for practitioners:

Prenups are not rigid instruments

Even a well-drafted agreement may be adapted in its operation to achieve fairness.

“Needs only” is not always the end point

Where assets are transferred (especially for clean break purposes), compensation may take the outcome beyond needs

Structure matters as much as wording

Here, the absence of:

A clear buy-out mechanism
A provision addressing inter-spousal share transfers

created the space for the court’s intervention.

A quiet evolution—not a revolution

A v Z does not weaken prenups. If anything, it reinforces their importance. But it does send a clear message:

Fairness remains the lodestar—and fairness is fact-sensitive, not formulaic.

For family lawyers, the case is a reminder that the real question is not:

“Is there a prenup?”

but:

“How will the court apply it in the real-world context of this marriage?”

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: brack v brack, case law, prenup, prenuptial agreements, radmacher, standish v standish

6 March 2026

False Prenups, Hidden Assets and an Art Collection: Lessons from a Complex Divorce Case

Financial remedy cases often involve difficult factual disputes, but KMR v AER is a particularly striking example. The judgment touches on several recurring themes in modern family litigation: the validity of nuptial agreements, non-disclosure of assets, economic misconduct, and how the court deals with attempts to dissipate wealth.

It is a reminder that in financial remedy proceedings, credibility and transparency can ultimately determine the outcome.

A Disputed Prenuptial Agreement

One of the central issues was whether the parties had entered into a valid nuptial agreement. The husband asserted that an agreement had been signed in Switzerland shortly before the marriage and should limit the wife’s financial claims.

The court approached the issue using the principles set out in Radmacher v Granatino, which established that a nuptial agreement may carry decisive weight if freely entered into with full understanding and without unfairness.

But the evidence unravelled quickly.

Documents contained inconsistencies, translation discrepancies and missing formalities. The husband could not explain the absence of the notary’s seal, the differences between versions of the agreement, or even precisely when or where it had been signed. Ultimately, the judge concluded that the purported agreement was not merely invalid but effectively a fabrication intended to mislead the court.

As a result, it had no impact on the financial distribution.

The Court’s Struggle to Identify the True Asset Picture

Another striking feature of the case was the difficulty in determining the real value of the parties’ wealth.

The husband had interests in several companies and an extensive art collection. However, valuations were inconsistent, documentation incomplete, and disclosure frequently inadequate. The judge noted repeated failures to comply with court directions and a lack of credible evidence supporting the husband’s figures.

Faced with this uncertainty, the court adopted the familiar approach of making a “ballpark” assessment of the marital assets, estimating them at around £6.84 million.

Where the lack of clarity was caused by one party’s non-disclosure, the court was entitled to draw adverse inferences.

Dissipation of Assets and Economic Misconduct

The judgment also addresses economic misconduct, referencing the framework described by Mostyn J in OG v AG.

The judge found that the husband had engaged in conduct designed to obscure or dissipate assets, including transactions and financial arrangements that made the true ownership of assets difficult to identify. Such behaviour, if sufficiently serious, can justify adjusting the financial outcome.

In this case, the court concluded that the husband’s conduct met the high threshold required for it to be inequitable to ignore.

The practical response was not punishment but financial adjustment: assets that had been dissipated or concealed were effectively brought back into the matrimonial calculation.

Non-Matrimonial Property Still Matters

The case also illustrates the court’s approach to non-matrimonial property.

Certain assets — including a Paris apartment purchased before the marriage and property held within the wife’s family trust — were treated as non-matrimonial and excluded from the sharing exercise.

However, the court still had to consider the parties’ needs and overall fairness when dividing the marital assets.

The Final Outcome

The court made significant capital orders in the wife’s favour, including:

Transfer of the husband’s art collection to the wife so it could be realised to fund her housing needs.
A lump sum payment of £1 million.
Additional contingent payments linked to ongoing litigation involving one of the husband’s companies.

The structure of the order reflected the judge’s lack of confidence that the husband would voluntarily comply without robust mechanisms.

What This Case Tells Us

KMR v AER highlights several important realities of financial remedy litigation:

Prenuptial agreements must be properly executed.
Poorly drafted or suspicious documents will carry little or no weight.
Full and frank disclosure remains the cornerstone of financial proceedings.
Attempts to obscure assets frequently backfire.
Conduct can still matter.
While the threshold is high, economic misconduct or asset dissipation can influence the outcome.
The court will take a pragmatic approach.
Where precise figures cannot be established due to one party’s conduct, judges will still reach a fair estimate.

Final Thoughts

Family finance cases often turn less on legal argument than on credibility, disclosure and evidence. When parties attempt to manipulate the financial picture — whether through dubious agreements, opaque asset structures or incomplete disclosure — the court is well equipped to respond.

KMR v AER is a vivid illustration that transparency is not just good practice in financial remedy proceedings — it is essential.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, og v ag, prenup, prenuptial agreements, radmacher

2 February 2026

When Conduct Undermines a Prenup: Lessons from Loh v Loh Gronager [2025] EWFC 483

Pre‑nuptial agreements are often presented as the ultimate form of certainty in financial remedy proceedings. Properly drafted, independently advised, and entered into freely, they are intended to provide clarity, limit dispute, and avoid costly litigation. But Loh v Loh‑Gronager is a powerful reminder that even the strongest prenup is not a licence to behave badly — and that conduct can still play a decisive role where fairness is put at risk.

The background

The parties entered into a detailed and sophisticated pre‑nuptial agreement which the court accepted was fully compliant with the principles in Radmacher v Granatino. The agreement disapplied sharing and compensation and limited the husband’s entitlement by reference to the length of the marriage. On its face, that would have produced an award of around £6.4 million.

However, the husband’s ultimate award was reduced to approximately £2.3 million. The reason lay not in needs, nor in any technical defect in the agreement, but in his conduct — both during the marriage and in the litigation itself.

Prenups do not authorise self‑help

One of the most striking features of the judgment is the court’s rejection of the husband’s apparent belief that the prenup entitled him to treat joint funds as his own. Cusworth J was clear that joint accounts and jointly held monies have a defined purpose, and unilateral withdrawals for personal use — even where one party asserts tacit approval or lack of objection — are not justified.

The court was unimpressed by arguments that the wife could have monitored the accounts more closely or that silence amounted to consent. A prenup may regulate what happens on divorce, but it does not rewrite the basic principles governing joint property during the marriage.

When conduct crosses the threshold

Conduct arguments in financial remedy cases rarely succeed, and the bar remains high. This case illustrates precisely what is required to meet the statutory test of conduct that would be “inequitable to disregard” under section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Cusworth J found that the husband’s behaviour went well beyond ordinary marital or litigation friction. It included:

repeated misuse of joint and ring‑fenced funds;
secretive financial dealings;
intimidation and harassment;
and, most seriously, the fabrication and manipulation of documentary evidence.

This was not conduct being punished for its own sake. The judge carefully linked it to fairness, credibility, and the integrity of the proceedings, concluding that it would be unjust to allow the husband to receive the full benefit of the prenup in those circumstances.

Fabricated evidence: a line rarely crossed

Findings of fabricated evidence are unusual and profoundly damaging. Cusworth J described this as among the most serious forms of litigation misconduct encountered in the Family Court. Once such findings were made, the husband’s credibility was fatally undermined and his case infected throughout.

The judgment is a stark warning that attempts to manufacture or doctor evidence are likely to backfire catastrophically, affecting not just costs but the substantive outcome itself.

Fairness under Radmacher

Importantly, the court did not treat conduct and the enforceability of the prenup as separate exercises. Instead, Cusworth J analysed whether it would be fair to hold the parties to the agreement in light of the husband’s behaviour. In doing so, he effectively aligned the Radmacher fairness test with the statutory conduct principles, demonstrating how the two operate together rather than in isolation.

Costs and proportionality

The case also stands as a sobering illustration of litigation excess. The parties incurred almost £4.8 million in legal costs to determine an entitlement ultimately fixed at £2.3 million. The judge observed that something had “gone very wrong”, highlighting the destructive potential of entrenched positions and aggressive litigation strategies.

Why this case matters

Loh v Loh‑Gronager is not simply a high‑net‑worth cautionary tale. It reinforces several key principles:

prenups do not excuse financial misconduct;
conduct can still materially affect outcome in truly exceptional cases;
dishonesty in proceedings is likely to be met with severe consequences; and
litigation strategy can be just as important as legal entitlement.

For clients and practitioners alike, the message is clear: certainty only works when matched with integrity. A prenup may set the framework, but fairness — and behaviour — still matter.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, conduct, litigation conduct, litigation misconduct, pre nup, prenuptial agreements, radmacher

6 November 2024

Binding Separation Agreements in Divorce: Insights from HJB v WPB [2024] EWFC 187

In HJB v WPB [2024] EWFC 187, the Family Court reaffirmed the importance of upholding separation agreements in financial remedy proceedings, providing guidance on how consensual agreements—entered into freely and with legal advice—are treated under family law. This case involved a husband and wife who reached a separation agreement in 2019, assigning each party specific assets without full financial disclosure. Later, as the husband’s business became significantly more profitable, the wife sought to challenge the agreement, questioning its fairness and alleging a lack of full disclosure.

The Court’s Ruling: Respecting the Agreement’s Weight

The court in HJB v WPB upheld the agreement, noting that it was “presumptively dispositive”—meaning it carried significant weight in the financial remedy proceedings. The ruling underscores that consensual agreements are not easily unpicked, even if one party’s financial circumstances improve. The wife’s argument focused on the improved value of the husband’s business, but the court found this insufficient to nullify the agreement. Since both parties entered into the agreement with independent legal advice and a mutual understanding of their financial positions at the time, it would stand as a key element in determining the final financial remedy order.

As a result, the court’s enquiry was limited to the agreement’s terms, but it acknowledged that other factors under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—such as the wife’s needs and future income—would still influence the outcome. Thus, while the agreement limited the scope of the court’s involvement, it did not completely remove the court’s ability to consider fairness and needs in the final order.

Key Legal Principles and Case Law

The court’s decision builds on key principles established in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, which underscores that agreements freely entered into should generally be upheld unless it would be unfair to do so. The case also drew on Edgar v Edgar [1980], which indicates that agreements may only be set aside if there is evidence of undue influence, fraud, or material non-disclosure. Here, the court found no evidence of coercion or significant withholding of information, affirming that the separation agreement should guide the division of assets.

Implications for Family Law Practitioners

For practitioners, HJB v WPB serves as a reminder of the strength that separation agreements can hold in divorce proceedings. Some critical points to consider:

Presumptive Weight of Agreements: As long as an agreement is entered into consensually and with independent legal advice, it is likely to be upheld, even if one party’s circumstances change significantly post-separation.
Limiting the Court’s Role: An agreement like this one can limit the court’s role to assessing needs and fairness without altering agreed-upon terms. This provides clients with more predictability, helping them avoid lengthy litigation.
Full and Frank Disclosure Still Matters: Although full disclosure wasn’t required in this case, the court will likely scrutinise any future agreements for material non-disclosure, especially if it significantly impacts fairness.
Exploring Non-Court Dispute Resolution: The court concluded with a reminder for parties to consider non-court dispute resolution options. Under Practice Direction 3A and Family Procedure Rules Part 3 and Part 28, parties are encouraged to use mediation or arbitration, particularly where agreements limit the need for court intervention.

Conclusion

The judgment in HJB v WPB is an important endorsement of the binding nature of separation agreements, reinforcing the legal principle that parties are bound by agreements entered into freely and with advice. It also demonstrates the court’s balanced approach, allowing it to assess needs and fairness without undermining the autonomy of mutually agreed-upon terms. This decision highlights how parties can achieve both certainty and fairness in divorce, provided they approach separation agreements transparently and thoughtfully.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: case law, edgar, FPR Part 28, FPR Part 3, hjb v wpb, ncdr, PD3A, radmacher, separation agreements

5 August 2024

Understanding the Legal Framework of Financial Settlements in Divorce

Divorce is a challenging process, not just emotionally but also legally. One of the most complex aspects is the financial settlement, where the court decides how to distribute assets between the parties. This decision is primarily guided by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, particularly section 25, and influenced by key case law. Let's delve into the legal principles and notable cases that shape these decisions.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: The Backbone of Financial Settlements

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 serves as the cornerstone for financial settlements in divorce cases in the UK. Section 25 of the Act outlines various factors that the court must consider to ensure a fair distribution of assets. These factors include:

The welfare of any children of the family.
The financial resources and needs of each party.
The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage.
The age and health of each party.
The contributions, both financial and non-financial, each party has made to the welfare of the family.

Even if the divorcing parties reach a mutual agreement on the financial settlement, the court must ensure that this agreement aligns with the section 25 factors and is fair to both parties.

Key Case Law Shaping Financial Settlements

Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42

A landmark case in the context of financial settlements is Radmacher v Granatino. This case established three critical principles for evaluating nuptial agreements:

Freely Entered Agreement: Both parties must enter the agreement voluntarily, without any undue pressure, and with a full understanding of its implications.
Material Disclosure: Each party must have all the necessary information to make an informed decision about the agreement.
Fairness: The agreement must be fair at the time of the marriage breakdown, not just when it was signed.

Edgar v Edgar [1980] EWCA Civ 2

In Edgar v Edgar, the court emphasised circumstances that could undermine a formal agreement, such as:

Undue Pressure or Exploitation: Agreements made under undue pressure or exploitation may be invalid.
Inadequate Knowledge or Bad Legal Advice: Lack of proper knowledge or poor legal advice can invalidate an agreement.
Significant Changes in Circumstances: Unforeseen significant changes in circumstances may necessitate revisiting the agreement.

Recent Case Law Developments

HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2: Highlighted that even in the absence of legal advice, an agreement might be upheld if the party had the opportunity to seek such advice unless fairness demands otherwise.
NA v MA [2006] EWHC 2900 (Fam): Confirmed that undue influence or exploitation can invalidate an agreement.
WC v HC [2022] EWFC 22: Established that agreements made under pressure, which did not amount to undue influence, still hold weight unless they are deemed unfair.
EK v DK [2023] EWHC 1829 (Fam): Emphasised that non-disclosure of significant financial details can lead to an agreement being set aside.
TRNS v TRNK [2023] EWFC 133: Determined that material non-disclosure impacts the enforceability of agreements.

Applying Legal Principles to Real Cases

Consider the recent case : HJB v WPB 2024 EWFC 187 where a wife challenged the post-separation financial agreement, alleging that the husband hid his true financial situation and that she was under undue pressure when agreeing. The court examined the case through the lenses of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and key precedents:

Full and Frank Disclosure: The court found that the husband had provided sufficient financial information about his business and assets, with no evidence of deliberate non-disclosure.
Duress and Undue Pressure: There was no evidence that the wife was under undue pressure or duress. She had access to legal advice throughout the negotiation process.
Fairness of the Agreement: The court determined that the settlement was fair at the time it was made, considering both parties' financial positions and the circumstances surrounding the agreement.

The principles from Radmacher v Granatino and Edgar v Edgar were instrumental in this assessment, confirming the validity and fairness of the agreement. Recent case law provided additional context, particularly on issues of disclosure and pressure.

Conclusion

The legal framework governing financial settlements in divorce is comprehensive, aiming to ensure fairness and protect the interests of both parties and their children. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and pivotal case law like Radmacher v Granatino and Edgar v Edgar play crucial roles in guiding these decisions. Understanding these principles can help parties navigate the complexities of divorce settlements more effectively, ensuring that agreements are equitable and just.

For anyone going through a divorce, it is essential to seek proper legal advice to understand these legal nuances and ensure a fair settlement.

Published by James Thornton in Blog

Tags: agreements, case law, edgar, radmacher, settlements

When a Prenup Gives More Than “Needs”: A Quiet but Important Shift – A v Z [2026] EWHC 654

False Prenups, Hidden Assets and an Art Collection: Lessons from a Complex Divorce Case

When Conduct Undermines a Prenup: Lessons from Loh v Loh Gronager [2025] EWFC 483

Binding Separation Agreements in Divorce: Insights from HJB v WPB [2024] EWFC 187

Understanding the Legal Framework of Financial Settlements in Divorce

Get in touch for your free consultation

Where innovation meets excellence

Information

York Office