It is now some ten years since the UK Supreme Court gave its landmark decision in the case of Radmacher v Granatino  UKSC 42 on the use and effectiveness of prenuptial agreements. In doing so it moved the emphasis on to holding the parties to their bargain when setting out the principle that "the court should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement."
The divorce process can be a difficult and intense experience for anyone, but for those with mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety, the experience is often all the more challenging. This is particularly so in the context of Covid-19, with many of our clients experiencing additional difficulties due to the pressures of lockdown.
Where there are disputes about the ownership of assets within divorce and financial proceedings, couples can encounter background noise from third parties – the extent of which will depend on the value or type of asset.
The Supreme Court recently made clear in Villiers v Villiers  UKSC 30 that divorcing in one EU country does not prevent a party from making a separate claim for maintenance from their spouse in England and Wales. The case therefore demonstrates the possibility of ‘forum shopping’, where a party seeks to bring a financial claim in a jurisdiction (country) that is more convenient or provides a more generous maintenance provision than the jurisdiction in which the divorce is taking place. However, the loophole relies on an application of the EU Maintenance Regulation which will cease to be in force in the UK on 31 December 2020. This blog considers the case of Villiers and how Brexit will affect the current position.