Radmacher v Granatino, the case that changed prenups in England and Wales

If you have read anything about prenuptial agreements in England and Wales in the last fifteen years, you have read about Radmacher v Granatino. The 2010 Supreme Court judgment is the reason solicitors will tell you a prenup carries real weight today. Here is what the case actually decided.

The facts

Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress to a paper fortune, married Nicolas Granatino, a French investment banker, in London in 1998. Before the wedding they signed a prenuptial agreement in Germany under which each waived any claim on the other's assets. The agreement was binding under German law. After the marriage broke down in 2006, Mr Granatino sought a financial award in the English courts. The case reached the Supreme Court in 2010.

What the Supreme Court said

By a majority of 8 to 1, the Supreme Court held 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" (Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, paragraph 75).

That is not the same as saying prenups are binding. The court retains discretion under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to make a fair financial order. What Radmacher did was shift the starting point. Before 2010, a prenup carried limited weight. After Radmacher, a prenup that meets the test is presumed to be followed unless doing so would be unfair.

What "freely entered into with full appreciation" means in practice

The judgment did not lay down a statutory checklist, but the Law Commission's 2014 report, "Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements", distilled what good practice looks like. It recommended a category called Qualifying Nuptial Agreements with these features:

• Signed at least 28 days before the wedding
• Both parties received independent legal advice at the time of signing
• Both parties provided full disclosure of their financial circumstances
• The agreement does not leave either party in a position of "real need"
• Both parties entered freely, without pressure

That recommendation has not been enacted into statute, but courts have followed similar reasoning when assessing weight.

What the case did not do

Radmacher did not override the court's duty to consider the welfare of any children of the family. It did not override the requirement that any settlement meet both parties' reasonable needs. And it did not bind future courts to a particular outcome. Each case still turns on its own facts.

What this means if you are considering a prenup

A prenup that follows the Radmacher and Law Commission framework will, in most cases, be given substantial weight by the English courts. A prenup that does not (signed the day before the wedding, no legal advice, no disclosure) will carry much less.

A private financial agreement signed during the relationship operates on the same principles of contract, disclosure, advice, and freedom from pressure, without the timing constraints of a prenup. For couples who want a clear, written record of what they have agreed without the cost or symbolism of a formal prenup, that is the route most use.