AH vs BH

This case concerned financial remedies following the breakdown of a 5.5-year marriage between AH and BH, involving a substantial estate and a prenuptial agreement.

TLDR:

• AH and BH were married for 5.5 years and have two children.
• The main issue was the interplay between the prenuptial agreement and the financial needs of the wife and children.
• The court ruled in favor of the wife, providing her with significant financial remedies despite the prenuptial agreement.

The applicant, AH, and the respondent, BH, were married for 5.5 years and have two children. The primary issue before the court was the interplay between the terms of a prenuptial agreement (PMA) and the financial needs of AH and the children. AH has very modest resources compared to BH's substantial estate, which is valued at approximately £50 million.

During the trial, the court examined the PMA, which was signed before the marriage and aimed to limit AH's financial claims. AH sought a transfer of the family home and a substantial income fund, while BH offered a smaller lump sum and child maintenance. The court had to balance the terms of the PMA with the actual financial needs of AH and the children.

The court found that the PMA, while clear and comprehensive, did not adequately meet the financial needs of AH and the children. The judge noted that AH had given up her flat and employment for the marriage, making her vulnerable and dependent. The court ruled that AH should receive a sum of money outright for the purchase of an alternative property and a capitalized sum for her income needs.

The court decided that the family home should be sold, with AH receiving 56.7% of the proceeds to purchase a new property. Additionally, BH was ordered to pay a lump sum for stamp duty and other costs, as well as interim maintenance and child maintenance until the children complete tertiary education.

The judgment emphasized the importance of meeting the financial needs of the primary carer and the children, even in the presence of a prenuptial agreement. The court's decision aimed to provide AH with financial security while respecting the terms of the PMA to a reasonable extent.

Overall, the court's ruling balanced the need to uphold the PMA with the necessity of ensuring AH and the children's financial stability. The outcome left AH with sufficient resources to meet her needs and those of the children, while BH retained the majority of his substantial estate.