There are a number of requirements that a pre-marriage agreement must meet. One of them is the independent legal representation of both parties. Historically, pre-married agreements have been found to be contrary to public policy, as the provision of a divorced woman and her children is a matter of public interest. In the British case of Bennett v. Bennett, the court stated that “it is in the public interest that the wife and children of a divorced husband should not be subject to public support or charity if he has the means to support them.” The divorce rate in Hong Kong is rising alarmingly. From 1986 to 2009, the number of divorces increased by 299% (from 4,257 to 17,002) and in 2011 there were 21,000 divorce applications. Without a pre-match or re-game delay, the way you get out of a divorce can be some kind of lottery, and if you don`t have a prior agreement, the legal fight can be quick and costly. While setting up a pre- or post-nupt agreement between HK 10,000 and HK 20,000, a couple can pay millions of dollars in legal battles if no agreement has been reached before separation. Sharon Ser led the groundbreaking SPH/SA case, which went to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal on marriage and separation agreements, leading to the realization that marital agreements had to be enforceable in Hong Kong. The Supreme Court also considered the three strands of needs, compensation and sharing proposed in White v White when considering the impact of the marriage agreement, it came to the conclusion that, if the court is to decide to make an order in accordance with a marriage agreement, the issue of fairness is the key issue. In the United Kingdom, it is likely that the court will respect the terms of the matrimonial agreement and that the parties will respect their agreement if the parties: if there are concerns about the protection of the patrimony before marriage, a pre-marital agreement should be considered before the marriage. This article explains why this is the case. Suffice it to say that a pre-marital agreement could be convincing evidence that a derogation from equality is justified if properly structured.
The Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) issued its judgment on 20 October 2010 after being heard on 22 March 2010 and found that “the old rule that agreements providing for future separation is contrary to public order is obsolete and should be swept away… (paragraph 52) We advise either the strongest party financially, or the spouse or life partner envisaged, and we are very careful to adapt our approach to individual realities. We have created pre-nups and post-nups for a number of different people, from entrepreneurs who reflect on their business interests, from beneficiaries of family trust and shareholders in family businesses to leading celebrities who want to protect their reputations. As in all our work, absolute discretion comes first. Use of preliminary and post-European agreements that have been settled in Hong Kong courts. Subsequently, in the Radmachner case, the British court found that pre-marriage agreements are not contrary to public policy. However, this view has only convincing value in Hong Kong.