The recent High Court decision in MN v AN has further reinforced the position of the courts to uphold pre-nuptial agreements, provided that they are not unreasonable or signed under duress.

The case involved the wife disputing a pre-nuptial agreement, stating that it was not enough and that she had been unduly influenced. The judge found in favour of the husband and that the terms of the prenup were sufficient, further noting that the wife had received adequate legal advice and had entered into the agreement of her own free will.

Partner Mark Harper explained that lawyers are increasingly finding that “the trick is to propose terms in a prenup which are more mean”, but “not so mean as to justify the judge interfering with the terms agreed”.

He noted that in this ruling, the fact that a judge might have awarded the wife more in spousal maintenance without the prenup “did not matter” because what was already agreed in the prenup “was more than enough”.

Read Mark’s comments in The Times, here.