Z v Z

A freely entered nuptial agreement should generally be upheld unless it would be unfair to hold the parties to it. An agreement excluding sharing may be enforced where the parties’ needs can be met. Foreign law may inform intention and fairness, but does not determine the English award. A claimed later variation requires the clearest evidence. Where sharing is excluded but maintenance is not, the court should assess reasonable needs generously.

The wife sought financial remedies after a 14-year marriage involving three children. The parties had married under a French separation-of-assets agreement. Their assets totalled about £15 million, with the husband holding the substantially greater share.

The wife sought equal sharing and relied on alleged promises that the agreement would not be enforced. The husband argued that it should be upheld, subject to a generous needs assessment. The issues were whether enforcement was fair, whether the agreement had been varied, and the appropriate needs-based award.

1. The agreement was upheld. It had been entered into freely, with full understanding of its implications, and remained operative. It excluded sharing but not maintenance. Applying Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, it was fair to hold the parties to it so far as sharing was concerned.
2. Foreign law was relevant to intention and fairness, but the award was governed by English law and was not reduced merely because the wife might have received less in France.
3. The alleged oral variation was rejected. A party seeking to establish subsequent variation bears a heavy burden and must provide the clearest possible evidence.
4. The February 2008 letter did not justify departure from the agreement. It was not a binding variation, and the absence of legal advice and the emotional pressure surrounding it made enforcement of its terms inappropriate.
5. Absent the agreement, equal sharing would have been appropriate under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25 and section 25(2). Giving effect to the agreement, the wife’s needs were assessed generously at £6,003,087, with child maintenance of £25,000 per child annually.
6. The husband was given a choice concerning tax liabilities and the award was implemented through property transfers and a lump sum. There was no order as to costs.