When you should (and shouldn’t) take out a prenup: Top divorce lawyer VANESSA

When the children of my friends and clients announce they are getting married, it is not the wedding venue or dress that is the talk of the table – it is whether to prenup or not to prenup.

For the uninitiated, a prenup – signed pre-nuptial, i.e. before the wedding – is a contract which defines how assets will be divided should the marriage end. It ultimately helps couples avoid messy and costly disputes in the event of a divorce or separation.

Contrary to popular belief, prenups are not just for the super-rich but are regularly used to protect assets in modest cases.

The issue is becoming even more pressing as parents are increasingly passing on wealth during their lifetime to avoid leaving their children with potential inheritance tax bills.

Wealth planners report that mums and dads are giving grown-up children money to help them get on to the property ladder while they are still fit and healthy. Gifts made during your lifetime are free of inheritance tax so long as you survive for seven years after making them.

But parents want to ensure their hard-earned cash is not going to be snaffled by their child’s spouse in the event of a divorce.

I draw up many prenups and can readily see their usefulness, but handling the issue sensitively is a must.

In my experience, fathers approach this topic very differently to their wives. They can see a prenup as a sensible precaution to protect the family assets should the relationship go wrong. Mothers tend to feel warm and cosy about their son or daughter meeting someone and want to wrap their children in love, so find the entire topic awkward, unsavoury and clinical.

Parents want to ensure their hard-earned cash is not going to be snaffled by their child’s spouse in the event of a divorce. Prenups are regularly used to protect assets in modest cases, but the issue must be handled with sensitivity, says Vanessa (picture posed by models)

One client, Fiona*, exploded at her husband Simon when he suggested that their daughter Emily should insist on a prenup with her fiancee. ‘But he is moving in to her house,’ Simon argued. ‘And guess who bought her that?’

‘I know we did,’ Fiona responded, ‘but it is so unromantic. Emily is 38, she has never found anyone till now and a prenup could kill this relationship stone-dead. We need to get her married and not think about money!’

As much as Simon fumed, Fiona was insistent Emily marry her beloved. However, three years and one child later, Emily’s husband ran off with his colleague. He then claimed that he needed equal housing as they shared care of the child. Half of the house was lost to him.

Simon never stops reminding Fiona that if she had listened to him, the situation could have been covered by a prenup and the whole of the home could have been ring-fenced as non-matrimonial – in other words, not part of the settlement and kept in full by Emily.

I’m often asked whether prenups are binding in the UK and they are certainly more likely to be after a landmark legal case, Radmacher v Granatino in 2010.

Ms Radmacher was a German heiress who married Mr Granatino, a French banker. They married in London after signing a pre-nuptial agreement in Germany but divorced eight years later.

That case brought in a framework to allow prenups to be enforced, indicating that parties should be free to enter into agreements about how they wanted their future finances to be dealt with in a subsequent divorce.

The criteria is to ensure fairness, consent and that legal advice has been given. The case stated for the first time that prenups should generally be upheld, unless doing so would be unfair or prejudicing the interests of children. The case did not say that all prenups would be binding, but that they should be given significant weight provided certain criteria are met.

Put simply, prenups are one factor among many taken into account when it is decided how a divorce case should pan out financially.

In some circumstances, the facts of the case are so clear cut that they will be absolutely binding. Take Theo, who was from a dynastic family famous for making French cheeses.

Vanessa Lloyd Platt is a matrimonial and divorce lawyer. She says many young people now feel it’s sensible to get a prenup as they are marrying later in life, so have assets to protect

The family wished to preserve their wealth so it might be passed down through the generations. When Theo announced to his parents that he had asked Natalie to marry him, they immediately took him to a lawyer, insisting he would have to broach the subject of a prenup with her.

Theo was anxious about raising the subject of a prenup with Natalie. When he did she felt hurt that his family did not trust her, but finally agreed to one.

When Natalie had an affair after 15 years of marriage, Theo filed for…