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.

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. Prenups are not rigid instruments

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

2. “Needs only” is not always the end point

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

3. 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?”