A Family Court has ruled that a post-nuptial agreement between a husband and wife did not fairly provide for the wife’s needs, particularly given her long-term childcare role and limited financial prospects.

The case involved a 65-year-old husband and a 41-year-old wife who were married for nine years and have a 10-year-old son. Just four days after their wedding in 2013, the couple signed a post-nuptial agreement intended to safeguard the husband’s premarital wealth, which included a mortgage-free property worth £600,000 and pensions valued at £711,000.

At the time, the wife—originally from Eastern Europe—had few assets and no pension. Under the agreement, should the couple separate after five years of marriage, the husband would provide the wife with a “modest freehold accommodation” in lieu of ongoing maintenance.

However, District Judge Chloë Phillips ruled that the agreement no longer reflected the wife’s financial needs or the best interests of their child. The court found that the wife had become the primary carer, which significantly limited her earning capacity and financial independence.

The wife contended that the agreement was no longer fair, citing her full-time childcare responsibilities and her desire to retrain as a psychologist. She further explained that, although she had not been coerced into signing the agreement, her immigration status and early pregnancy created pressure to agree.

The judge concluded that the agreement, although validly executed and not obtained under duress, failed to make sufficient provision for the wife’s needs in light of her caregiving responsibilities and evolving circumstances.

Judge Phillips awarded the wife a financial settlement of £489,000 to assist with purchasing suitable housing, covering living expenses, and supporting her professional retraining. She highlighted that the husband, who continues to earn a high income despite nearing retirement, was capable of meeting this obligation without undue financial strain.

“The court’s first consideration must be the welfare of the child,” stated Judge Phillips. “It is clear that the wife, as the primary carer, requires additional support to meet the needs of the child and to transition to independence.”

This ruling illustrates how courts in England and Wales evaluate nuptial agreements. While such agreements are increasingly upheld—especially where entered into freely and with legal advice—they are not binding if they lead to an unfair outcome, particularly in cases involving dependent children or substantial changes in life circumstances.