Multi-million ‘pre-nup’ dispute hits Royal Court

Thursday 02 August 2018

How binding are the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement? That’s the question Jersey’s Royal Court has been struggling to settle in a multi-million pound dispute currently before it.

In what could be a landmark case – simply described as G v H – the court is in essence having to weigh up whether a change in conditions since the agreement was signed could have a bearing on any pay-outs.

The case involves a wealthy widow – G – and her former husband, who was 10 years her junior – H. The pair married in 2013, but G started divorce proceedings in January this year on the grounds of his "unreasonable behaviour."

Before they married, H was a bachelor, and had savings of about £10,000, although his advocate told the court he was earning about £10,000 a month. G, meanwhile, had inherited a "substantial" amount of money when her first husband had died. 

Three weeks before the wedding G had her lawyer draw up a PMA. According to the respondent – H – it initially said he would get £1m as a settlement if their marriage broke up after three years together, and £5m if it lasted longer than five years. But, that was changed, to £1m if they broke up before five years together, and £3m after that. H signed the PMA but claims it wasn’t made clear to him that the terms had been changed.

Pictured: The case was heard by the Family Division of the Royal Court.

The Court heard that the former husband had already been paid £1million and received several motor vehicles during the course of the marriage. But he also thinks he should benefit from a very successful company the couple set up during their time together. It’s now estimated to be worth many millions of pounds. G holds all the shares.

Giving judgement, Registrar Judy Marie O’Sullivan, commented: “A judge will need to consider “all the circumstances” of [this] case, namely not only the PMA but also the creation of CAL, what is the respondent’s interest in it and its value as well as the PMA in deciding what is fair in all the circumstances.  The PMA therefore cannot be looked at in isolation.”

She continued: “The respondent [the man – H] needs to set out why he considers that the PMA is not validly entered into and is unfair, and why he considers that the PMA should not rule the outcome of the ancillary relief application, with the petitioner having the right to answer this.  I am not therefore ordering the petitioner provide documentary evidence in support of her financial position at the time the PMA. I will however order liberty to apply.”

The case was heard by the Royal Court's Family Division, which operates from the main building.

However, that could soon change after the Bailiff's Office made an application to use Picquet House, which is also based in the Royal Square, for family court hearings.

Pictured: Piquet House, where cases like this could be held in future.

The building formerly housed the Police station, but has largely remained empty for many years. Most recently, it has been used as an art studio.

A decision is yet to be made, but Infrastructure Minister Kevin Lewis yesterday signed a Ministerial Decision stating that his department would support the capital bid and provide annual funding to cover the maintenance of the building.