Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Money Before Love

Robert Verkaik, legal editor of The Independent writes today about pre-nuptial agreements, with particular reference to the Crossley case. I have of course already written about Crossley, here and here. Verkaik suggests that "the thousands of couples who pledge their troth on St Valentine's Day may find it would pay to spend a little time proposing the idea of a pre-nuptial agreement too". He points out that whilst pre-nups are not legally binding, the Court of Appeal in Crossley "showed that if both parties had given their free consent to the terms of a contract, then the court would try to honour it". One thing that I was not aware of is that "Mrs Crossley is understood to have now abandoned her claim against her husband, leaving the contract intact", although it seemed that she had little choice.

Thanks to that old romantic Charon QC for the link to this article. I shall be posting my own thoughts on the subject of romance tomorrow.

***

Update: The Times has confirmed that Mrs Crossley has abandoned her claim, calling her decision "a boost to the status of prenuptial agreements" (thanks to Current Awareness for the link). On the other hand, the Financial Times feels that the decision leaves uncertainty as to how pre-nups will be enforced, as the court will not be adjudicating the issue.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.