EPO Care

Supreme Court ruling clarifies status of pre-nup agreements

 A ruling by the Supreme Court in a divorce case means that pre-nuptial agreements will generally be considered binding as long as they are fair and entered into freely. The case involved German heiress Katrin Radmacher and her former husband Nicolas Granatino who is French. The couple married and lived in England so English law applies.  When they married they drew up a pre-nup agreement saying that he would not make a claim on her money if they ended up divorcing.  However, when they later divorced, Mr Granatino said he would suffer personal hardship if the agreement was upheld. The High Court decided that it would be unfair to hold Mr Granatino to the pre-nup agreement and awarded him £5.8m from Miss Radmacher’s fortune.  However, that ruling was then overturned by the Court of Appeal which cut the payment to £1m – a figure Miss Radmacher was prepared to accept. Mr Granatino’s lawyers argued that the Court of Appeal had created a revolutionary piece of legislation instead of applying existing case law.  They took the case to the Supreme Court but that too ruled in favour of Ms Radmacher.  Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said: "The court should give effect to such an agreement if it is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications, unless in the circumstances prevailing, it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.” He stressed that judges would still have the discretion ignore pre-nups if they were unfair, especially to children, but said that following the ruling it will be natural to infer that parties entering into agreements will “intend that effect be given to them”. “What is important is that each party should have all the information that is material to his or her decision, and that each party should intend that the agreement should govern the financial consequences of the marriage coming to an end.” Lord Phillips added: “The circumstances of the parties at the time of the agreement will be relevant. Those will include such matters as their age and maturity, whether either or both had been married or been in long-term relationships before. What may not be easily foreseeable for less mature couples may well be in contemplation of more mature couples.”  It means that if both parties freely enter into a pre-nup that is fair, and both disclose all the relevant financial information in advance, then that agreement will be upheld by the courts.  Please contact us if you would like more information about pre-nuptial agreements or any aspect of matrimonial and family law.  

Woman awarded compensation for bad employment reference

 A woman has been awarded compensation after being given a bad reference by her former employers. The case arose after the woman had brought a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against her former employers. That claim was settled and she was then offered a new job with another firm. However, the job offer was subject to satisfactory references. The former employer gave a reference which said that the woman was inflexible in her opinions and that she had a poor relationship with colleagues. It also referred to the discrimination claim she had brought against the company. The reference led to the new firm modifying its job offer so that the woman would be put on probation for six months and could be dismissed with one month’s notice. The new terms were unacceptable to her so she declined the job offer and brought a claim of victimisation against her former employer. She alleged that the reference had been given for illegitimate reasons.  The employment tribunal held that she had been victimised. It awarded her compensation for the injury to her feelings but declined to award compensation for loss of earnings. That ruling has been overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal which held that she should receive compensation for loss of earnings as well as for injury to her feelings. Please contact us if you would like more information about employment law issues. 

 Mother prevented from relocating within UK with her children

 Courts will generally try to grant a parent’s application to relocate with their children within the UK unless there are exceptional circumstances. That principle of exceptional circumstances arose when a court refused a mother permission to move with her four children to the Orkney Isles from a town in the north of England. The mother had remarried after divorcing the father of her four children, aged between nine and 14. She and her new husband wanted to live in the Orkney Isles and so she applied for permission to relocate with her children. The father opposed the move so the mother remained in England with her children while the matter was being resolved. The judge heard evidence from a social worker who had spoken to the children. The eldest son was ambivalent about the move, the daughter was in favour but the other two sons were opposed.  The judge found that the move would cause the children huge emotional strain and harm. He concluded that the move to the Orkney Isles was as close to leaving the UK jurisdiction as it was possible to get without actually going abroad. The circumstances were so exceptional that it was appropriate to refuse the mother’s application. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. It held that the mother’s application was fraught with difficulties. All four children had been brought up in an English town and were firmly rooted there.  Contact with their father was important to them but the distance of the journey involved would make that too difficult. The welfare of the children required that the mother’s application be refused. If that had to be expressed in terms of there being exceptional circumstances then that was the decision of the court. Please contact us if you would like more information about family law issues. 

 Girl trapped in lift awarded £9,000 compensation

 A girl who was trapped in a lift for 20 minutes has been awarded £9,000 in compensation.  The girl, who is now 13, was 11 when the incident happened. She was on holiday with her family when they got stuck in a lift and could not open the doors. Her parents pressed the emergency button but there was no response. After about 20 minutes, a passer-by heard their calls for help and they were released. While she was trapped in the lift, the girl became very upset and was physically sick. She started to feel worse as her parents became anxious and increasingly angry.  For the rest of the holiday, she refused to use lifts but enjoyed the rest of her stay and was able to use theme park rides.  The girl is now only able to use lifts with glass doors that give a clear view. She underwent cognitive behaviour therapy but it had little effect. An evaluation indicated that she was suffering from anxiety and a phobia of lifts. It’s thought that her symptoms are likely to fully resolve by the time she is 20. The girl took legal action against the holiday firm alleging that it was negligent in failing to maintain or repair the lift. Liability was admitted. She was awarded £9,000 for her pain, suffering and loss of amenity.  Anyone who suffers an injury as a result of someone else’s negligence is entitled to claim compensation. Please contact us if you would like more information about making a personal injury claim.   

Boy left scarred after road accident awarded £30,000 

A 14-year-old boy has been awarded £30,000 compensation for injuries he sustained in a road accident. The boy was only two years old when the accident happened in 1998. He was travelling unrestrained on the back seat of a car when the driver lost control and swerved off the road. The boy was thrown through the windscreen. He sustained head and stomach injuries. He was in an intensive care unit for seven days before he woke up and began to say a few words. He became anxious and depressed, and was diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.  The fracture to his head healed but he was left with a permanent scar which he found upsetting. He brought an action for damages alleging that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the driver. The driver admitted liability but was not insured so the claim was brought against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. He was awarded £30,000 compensation for his pain, suffering and loss of amenity. There was no deduction for contributory negligence in not wearing a seat belt as he was only a child at the time of the accident. Anyone who is injured as a result of someone else’s negligence is entitled to claim compensation. Please contact us if you would like more information.  

Dismissed police officer reinstated after a gap of five years 

A probationary police officer who was wrongfully dismissed has been reinstated even though she had been away from her job for five years. The case arose after the officer had been charged with obtaining property by deception. She was found not guilty but she then faced proceedings under reg.13 of the Police Regulations 2003. After a brief hearing she was told she would have to resign. The officer sought a mandatory order that she should be reinstated because the chief constable should not have applied the regulations in the way he did and his decision to dismiss her was clearly unreasonable. The High Court has now ruled in her favour. The judge held that the chief constable was not entitled to use regulation 13 for dismissal purposes in this case. The officer should only have been dismissed as a result of formal misconduct proceedings but these had not taken place.  The chief constable had no power to dismiss her on the basis of a hearing that only lasted five minutes and which contained procedural flaws. It was therefore necessary to reinstate her in order to correct a serious wrong – even though she had been away from the job for five years.  Please contact us if you would like more information about this or any aspect of employment law.