Family Court Judgment: Enforcement of Pre-Marital Agreement in High-Asset Divorce [2024] EWFC 125

In [2024] EWFC 125, Mr. Justice Peel of the Family Court ruled on the financial remedies in a divorce case involving a £50 million estate. The primary issue was the interplay between a pre-marital agreement (PMA) and the financial needs of the wife and their two children. The PMA significantly limited the wife's claims, but the court awarded her £4.05 million, reflecting the children's needs and the impact of the marriage on her financial independence. The ruling balanced the PMA's terms with the wife's ongoing responsibilities as the primary carer, ensuring fairness within the context of a high-asset divorce.

Case Overview:

The case involves AH (husband) and BH (wife) in financial remedy proceedings following their 5 ½ year marriage. The husband, with assets valued at approximately £50 million, sought to limit the wife’s financial claims through a pre-marital agreement (PMA). The wife, with modest assets and primary responsibility for their two children, challenged the sufficiency of the PMA to meet her and the children’s needs. The court had to balance the terms of the PMA with the wife’s financial dependency and the children’s welfare.

Legal Issues:

• Pre-Marital Agreement (PMA): The central issue was whether the PMA, which limited the wife’s financial claims, should be upheld in light of her and the children’s needs.

• Needs-Based Claims: The wife argued that the PMA did not adequately provide for her needs, particularly as the primary carer for their children.

• Standard of Living: The court considered the couple’s standard of living during the marriage, including their housing and lifestyle, in determining the appropriate financial settlement.

Court’s Analysis:

Mr. Justice Peel recognized the binding nature of the PMA, noting that it was entered into freely with full legal advice. However, he found that the PMA did not adequately address the wife’s needs, particularly given her role as the primary carer. The court awarded the wife a property budget of £2.75 million, a lump sum for moving costs, and a capitalized maintenance fund of £710,000. The husband retained the majority of the assets, in line with the PMA, but the court ensured that the wife and children’s needs were sufficiently met.

Judgment Summary:

The Family Court upheld the pre-marital agreement but departed from its terms to meet the wife’s needs as the primary carer for the children. The wife was awarded £4.05 million in total, including a budget for a new home and a capitalized income fund. The court emphasized the importance of fairness, balancing the protection of the husband's business and wealth with the wife’s long-term responsibilities and financial dependency. The judgment underscores the court’s discretion in ensuring that the financial needs of the parties, particularly where children are involved, are adequately addressed, even in the context of a high-asset divorce with a binding PMA.