Legal Case Summary
Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42
Validity of anti-nuptial agreement providing neither party should benefit from the other’s property
Facts
A French investment banker married a very wealthy German national. Prior to the marriage, at the request of the wife’s family, an anti-nuptial agreement was signed by both parties. The agreement provided that each party forego any interest or benefit from the other’s property acquired either before or during the marriage. They had two children but divorced after nine years and the husband claimed ancillary relief against the wife’s assets.
Issues
The husband contended he should not be bound by the terms of the agreement because he was nowhere near as wealthy as the wife, and he had not sought independent legal advice. He argued anti-nuptial agreements are contrary to public policy under MacLeod v MacLeod [2010] 1 AC 298 because the financially weaker party is inevitably under pressure to sign, they exclude the jurisdiction of the court which is unfair, and if they are to be accorded validity, it should be a matter for parliament to legislate to provide for their validity. The wife argued there was no legislation prohibiting such agreements, and parties should be free to agree between themselves how their assets are to be held. The husband entered the agreement of his own free will and should be bound by its terms.
Decision / Outcome
The anti-nuptial agreement was valid. The rule that such agreements are contrary to public policy should no longer apply. A court could give effect to an agreement even if the result is different to that which the court would have ordered. If freely entered into, with all information available to both parties and in the absence of pressure, such agreements should be upheld, unless it would be unfair to do so.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Granatino v Radmacher [2010] UKSC 42. The Supreme Court’s ruling remains the leading authority on the enforceability of prenuptial (and postnuptial) agreements in England and Wales.
Readers should be aware of one significant development: the Law Commission examined this area in its 2014 report Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements (Law Com No 343), recommending that qualifying nuptial agreements be given statutory force as binding contracts, provided certain safeguards are met. However, as of 2025, no legislation implementing those recommendations has been enacted. The law therefore continues to rest on the Radmacher principles, meaning prenuptial agreements remain persuasive but not automatically binding, and courts retain discretion to depart from them where enforcement would be unfair — particularly where the needs of children or a financially vulnerable spouse are not met. Students and practitioners should note this ongoing gap between the Law Commission’s proposals and the current legal position.
