The Supreme Court decided that in principle, Judges, when dealing with financial claims on divorce, should give effect to pre nups. However, this is subject to provision that the agreement must have been freely entered into by the parties with full appreciation of its implications.
The decision suggests that in terms of enforceability, there is a strong, but not absolute presumption that pre nups will be binding on the Court.
The Supreme Court themselves have said that those who now enter into pre nups will be considered to have intended their agreement to be upheld.
Since Radmacher, the Courts have further considered the issue of pre nups in the cases of Z v Z [2011] and V v V [2011].
For the moment, however, the Supreme Court judgment is the next best thing to reform in this area and the Justices have made their views quite clear - anyone who has (or may have) assets which they wish to protect from sharing with their spouse on divorce should have a pre nup. Are pre nups romantic?
However, when entering into a pre nup, certain formalities must still be observed as failure to do may impact on its enforceability.