A valid marriage agreement must meet certain basic conditions. In particular, the couple was young when they entered into the pre-marriage contract. Twenty years after the marriage, circumstances have changed and the financial landscape has been considered very different than when the pre-marriage agreement came into force. Particular consideration was given to the fact that the woman had sacrificed her career for the benefit of the family. The court found that it “would simply be wrong for [the wife] to be held under the [premarital agreement] when the husband had to keep the fruits of his victim.” As a result, the judge provided the woman with a greater financial provision than had been agreed in the pre-marriage agreement. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court`s decision in cyclists represented a significant change in the approach and weight of marriage contracts negotiated, developed and freely executed without vibration factors. Valid marriage contracts are therefore always taken into account and taken into account and often decisive in the general circumstances of a case involving the finding of financial rights to divorce or the dissolution of a life partnership. The terms of a valid agreement can therefore affect not only whether a prize is awarded, but also the size and structure of a bonus. The position could change in the future and such agreements could become legally binding. However, the Court had the discretion not to consider the pre-court agreement if it found it to be abusive.
However, the recent high-level case of Radmacher/Granatino has led some to hope that the law will be more clearly enforced with regard to pre-marital agreements. The Supreme Court has stated that it agrees that such agreements can have decisive or imperative weight in the right case. The growing movement towards marital contracts, which allow the parties to play a greater role in defining financial arrangements in the event of divorce, is welcomed by family physicians. Clarifications and developments in the courts, both in England and Wales and in Hong Kong, have also provided considerable support for this evolving legal field. Maybe in ten years we can discuss marriage contracts with more certainty. But until then, it is important that parties who wish to reach an agreement continue to be cautious with them. “I know some people think that preconjugal agreements are not romantic, but for us, it should be a way to prove that you`re getting married for love.” The case was eventually referred to the Supreme Court, which approved the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal.