Prenuptial Agreements: Are They Legally Binding in the UK?

The government's consultation document says that at present, nuptial agreements are not automatically enforceable in England and Wales. In Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 the Supreme Court said that the parties cannot, by agreement, oust the jurisdiction of the court. It also set out this test for both ante-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements:

The Supreme Court described the fact of the agreement as an important factor to be weighed in the balance. It endorsed a judge's view that the agreement is one factor in the process and perhaps, in the right case, the most compelling factor. Our financial settlement guide covers how a divorce court divides money and property.

The Supreme Court said the safeguards proposed in a 1998 Home Office consultation are likely to be highly relevant, and agreed with the Court of Appeal that it was correct in principle to ask whether there was any material lack of disclosure, information or advice. These are the points it made about how an agreement is made:

• ✓Yes: To carry full weight, both husband and wife must enter into it of their own free will, without undue influence or pressure, and informed of its implications
• ✓Yes: Each party should have all the information that is material to their decision
• ✓Yes: Sound legal advice is obviously desirable, because it helps a party understand the implications of the agreement
• ✓Yes: Each party should intend that the agreement should govern the financial consequences of the marriage coming to an end

These are the points it said reduce or remove the weight of an agreement:

• ✗No: Duress, fraud or misrepresentation negate any effect the agreement might otherwise have
• ✗No: Unconscionable conduct such as undue pressure, falling short of duress, is likely to eliminate the weight to be attached to the agreement
• ✗No: Exploitation of a dominant position to secure an unfair advantage would reduce or eliminate the weight
• ✗No: If the terms of the agreement are unfair from the start, this will reduce its weight

The court may also take into account a party's emotional state and what pressures they were under to agree. Another important factor may be whether the marriage would have gone ahead without an agreement, or without the terms which had been agreed.

The Supreme Court referred to three strands that are relevant to what is fair on divorce: need, compensation and sharing. It said needs and compensation are the strands that can most readily make it unfair to hold the parties to an agreement. Where those considerations do not apply and each party can meet their own needs, it said fairness may well not require a departure from the agreement, and it is on the third strand, sharing, that the court is most likely to make an order in the terms of the agreement.

It also said the longer the marriage has lasted, the more likely it is that the couple's circumstances have changed in ways that were not envisaged, which can make it unfair to hold them to an agreement that tried to address the future.

Proposed reform, not yet law: The government launched a consultation called A fairer end to relationships on 5 June, which ran for 10 weeks and closed on 14 August 2026. The consultation document says the government is consulting on introducing binding qualifying nuptial agreements, supported by safeguards to ensure that any decision to enter into such an agreement is fully informed and freely made. It also says current case law governs the legal status of nuptial agreements.

The government proposes these safeguards for a qualifying nuptial agreement:

• ✓Yes: The agreement must be a valid contract without, for example, undue influence or misrepresentation
• ✓Yes: It must be made by deed, with a statement signed by both parties that they understand it will partially remove the court's discretion to make financial orders
• ✓Yes: It must not be made within the 28 days immediately before the wedding or the celebration of civil partnership
• ✓Yes: Each party must have received disclosure of material information about the other party's financial situation
• ✓Yes: Each party must have independent legal advice

It also proposes that a party could not waive their rights to disclosure and legal advice, and that it should not be possible to use a qualifying nuptial agreement to opt out of children's needs.

The government says it will consider the findings carefully before finalising policy, and finalised reforms will then take place when parliamentary time allows. Our cohabitation agreements guide covers the proposals for unmarried couples.

The Supreme Court said parties are often motivated by a wish to make provision for existing property owned by one or other, or property that one or other anticipates receiving from a third party. It said there is nothing inherently unfair in such an agreement. Examples that appear in the judgment include:

• ✓Yes: Property that one of them already owns
• ✓Yes: Property that one of them expects to receive from someone else
• ✓Yes: Obligations towards existing family members, which the Supreme Court said can be a good objective justification
• ✓Yes: A second marriage between mature adults who may each have children of their own from a first marriage

The consultation document says post-nuptial agreements are made after a marriage. The Supreme Court said its test applies to both ante-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements. Our divorce guide covers the divorce process in England and Wales.

Scotland: the Supreme Court noted that the approach of English law to nuptial agreements differs significantly from the law of Scotland. Under section 16 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, the court may make an order setting aside or varying the agreement or any term of it where the agreement was not fair and reasonable at the time it was entered into. A term of an agreement purporting to exclude the right to apply for such an order is void.

Northern Ireland is not covered by this guide, because we have not found an official source that sets out how its courts treat a prenup.