Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreements.

Yes — a prenuptial agreement can be challenged on several grounds. The most common are: that one party did not receive independent legal advice; that full financial disclosure was not provided; that the agreement was signed under duress or undue pressure; that circumstances have changed so significantly since signing that enforcing the agreement would be unfair; or that the terms leave one party, or any children, in an unfairly poor position. The court always retains the power to depart from an agreement if it considers the outcome unjust. A well-drafted agreement that meets all the Radmacher requirements is much harder to challenge successfully.

No — not in a binding way. Courts in England and Wales always retain jurisdiction over arrangements for children, and no agreement between parents can override a court's assessment of what is in a child's best interests. A prenuptial agreement cannot predetermine where children will live, how much time they will spend with each parent, or what financial provision will be made for them. It is possible to record intentions about children in a prenuptial agreement, but those intentions will not be enforced if they conflict with the children's welfare at the time of any dispute. Child arrangements and child financial provision are always dealt with separately.

Yes — both parties should have independent legal advice from separate solicitors before signing. This is one of the key factors courts look for when deciding whether to uphold an agreement. If one party had no legal advice, or both used the same solicitor, the agreement is significantly more vulnerable to challenge. Independent advice ensures that each party understood what they were signing and what rights they may be giving up. The cost of separate legal advice is modest compared to the protection the agreement provides — and compared to the cost of contested financial proceedings if the marriage later breaks down.

Yes — reviewing and updating a prenuptial agreement after significant life changes is strongly advisable. The birth of children, a substantial increase or decrease in either party's wealth, a significant inheritance, the sale of a business, or a long period of time passing since the agreement was made can all affect whether a court considers the original terms still fair and relevant. A prenuptial agreement that was reasonable when signed but has not kept pace with changed circumstances is more vulnerable to challenge. A postnuptial agreement can be used to update or replace the original, incorporating any changes in circumstances since the wedding.

We charge by the hour and provide a written cost estimate at the outset. The cost depends on the complexity of the assets involved, how straightforward the negotiation is, and how much time is needed to reach agreed terms. A straightforward agreement where both parties are broadly aligned costs less than one involving complex business interests, overseas assets, or difficult negotiations. Bear in mind that both parties need separate legal representation, so each will have their own solicitor's costs. The overall cost is modest compared to the financial exposure that an agreement is designed to protect against.

For most people with significant pre-marital wealth, a business interest, or an expected inheritance, a prenuptial agreement is worth serious consideration. Without one, all assets — including those acquired before the marriage and inheritances received during it — are potentially in scope in a divorce settlement, particularly in a long marriage. A prenuptial agreement does not guarantee protection, but it substantially increases the likelihood that the court will respect the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. The longer the marriage and the more assets become intermingled, the harder they are to ring-fence — which is why acting before the wedding, rather than after, matters.

No — a postnuptial agreement can achieve the same outcome as a prenuptial agreement for couples who are already married. Courts treat postnuptial agreements in broadly the same way as prenuptial ones, applying the same requirements around independent legal advice, financial disclosure, and fairness. A postnuptial agreement is particularly worth considering if circumstances have changed since the wedding — for example, if one spouse has inherited significant assets, started a successful business, or if the couple simply did not get round to a prenup before the wedding. It is never too late to clarify financial intentions, provided both parties are willing to engage.

A prenuptial agreement can cover the division of property, savings, investments, and business interests on divorce; the treatment of pre-marital assets and inheritances; and whether either party will make maintenance claims against the other. It can specify that certain assets remain separate rather than forming part of the matrimonial pot. What it cannot do is make binding arrangements for children — courts always retain jurisdiction to determine what is in a child's best interests, regardless of what parents have agreed in advance. An agreement that attempts to predetermine child arrangements or maintenance will not be enforced on those points.

A postnuptial agreement serves the same purpose as a prenuptial agreement — setting out how assets will be divided if the marriage ends — but is made after the wedding rather than before. The courts treat postnuptial agreements in broadly the same way as prenuptial agreements, applying the same Radmacher principles. The same requirements apply: both parties should have independent legal advice, full financial disclosure should be exchanged, and the terms should be fair. Postnuptial agreements are often made when couples did not get round to a prenup before the wedding, or where circumstances have changed significantly during the marriage — such as one spouse receiving a large inheritance or starting a successful business.

A prenuptial agreement is a contract made before marriage that sets out how assets will be divided if the marriage ends. In England and Wales, prenuptial agreements are not automatically legally binding in the way they are in many other countries — a court retains the power to override one if it considers the terms unfair. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2010], a prenuptial agreement that meets certain requirements will be given decisive weight by a court. In practice, a well-drafted prenuptial agreement significantly influences the outcome of any financial settlement on divorce, and is the closest thing English law offers to a guaranteed protection of pre-marital assets.

Courts are more likely to uphold a prenuptial agreement where: both parties received independent legal advice before signing; full financial disclosure was exchanged between the parties; the agreement was signed at least 28 days before the wedding without pressure or duress; the terms are broadly fair and do not leave one party in a significantly worse position than if no agreement existed; and the agreement has been reviewed and updated to reflect major life changes such as the birth of children. No single factor is decisive — the court looks at the overall picture. An agreement ticking all these boxes gives the strongest protection available under English law.

A prenuptial agreement should be signed at least 28 days before the wedding — this is the minimum period courts expect to see, to demonstrate that neither party signed under pressure at the last minute. In practice, starting the process at least three to four months before the wedding is strongly advisable: both parties need time to instruct separate solicitors, exchange financial disclosure, negotiate terms, and review the draft without feeling rushed. An agreement signed days before the wedding, or where one party had little time to take advice, is far more likely to be challenged successfully.