Pre-nuptial agreements are not currently legally binding In England and Wales and this sets the law apart significantly from the USA and most European countries.

Historically, pre-nuptial agreements have had little weight in dividing up matrimonial assets as they have been viewed by the courts as being contrary to public policy, as they undermine the concept of marriage as a life-long union.

This is a frustration to those who wish to have control over their finances when they get married and wish to avoid expensive court proceedings.

In March, the Supreme Court started hearing the potentially landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino which involves a German pre-nuptial agreement signed by one of that country’s richest women, Katrin Radmacher.

Ms Radmacher, a paper industry heiress, made legal history last year when her pre-nuptial agreement was recognised by the Court of Appeal.

She and Nicolas Granatino were married for eight years before they separated.

The couple's marriage was said to have broken down after Mr Granatino, 37, gave up a lucrative job in the emerging markets sector in 2003 to become a £30,000-a-year biotechnology researcher at Oxford University.

Ms Radmacher came from a very wealthy German family and had personal wealth of around £100m. They had two children together.

The couple divorced in 2006, and the pre-nuptial agreement simply provided that they should each go their separate ways on divorce.

Her former husband had agreed not to make any claims on her fortune if they separated, but was awarded £5.85m for his own use by a high court judge.

This was reduced to £1m by the Court of Appeal as a lump sum instead of maintenance payments, with a fund of £2.5m for a house, which will be returned to Ms Radmacher when the youngest of their two daughters, now aged six, reaches the age of 22.

His debts of about £700,000 are to be paid by the heiress, which she has agreed to do. The case is now with the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Justices are expected to give their ruling later in the year.

So what does this mean for pre-nuptial agreements?

It is a landmark judgment as three of the most highly-respected judges in the land ruled that pre-nups can be decisive in determining the financial division on divorce.

There is a climate of giant divorce settlements and London has been described as the divorce capital of the world.

The Heather Mills and Paul McCartney divorce was in the spotlight in 2008, and singer Cheryl Cole has just been reported as filing for divorce following allegations of footballer husband Ashley’s infidelity.

Not only are these couples glamorous and powerful, but their volatile relationships also tend to end quickly — and sometimes explosively.

Many believe the Radmacher ruling is likely to be received as a breath of fresh air to wealthy men and women across the UK who, before now, have felt too nervous to marry.

It is thought by some that pre-nuptial agreements do not undermine the institution of marriage but take very seriously the future needs of married couples in a responsible way. Protected by a contract, more people may get married.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Ms Radmacher, it will effectively legalise the use of pre-nuptial agreements without the need for legislation.

In the meantime, the Law Commission is planning to publish a consultation paper this summer when it will be reviewing the eventual timing for publication of a report and draft bill.

Clearly the outcome of the Radmacher case will have an influence on the findings of the report and draft bill.

For a pre-nuptial agreement to have the best possible chance of being upheld, some minimum safeguards should be met: n Both parties should have received independent legal advice n Full financial disclosure must be made n The agreement has to be realistic and fair n There should be no evidence of duress or undue influence before entering into the agreement, and it has to be drawn up at least 21 days prior to the marriage n Provision for children must be made in the agreement Unless the safeguards have been met it renders the agreement worthless. It is, however, interesting to note that in the Radmacher case the pre-nuptial agreement fell foul of many of the recommended safeguards above.

If the safeguards had been met, then it might have been the case that Mr Granatino would have been held to the agreement in its entirety.

o Contact: Michelle Jewell, Hine Solicitors, 01865 339660.

Web: www.hinesolicitors.com