The case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 was a welcome Essay

The case of Radmacher v Granatino 2010 UKSC 42 was a welcome development in the area of financial moderation on divorce. Discuss - Essay ExamplePrior to the discussion, it is relevant to convey an insight as pertains to the main issues in the topic of discussion. To begin with, divorce is passed by a solicit and nullifies the marriage between two married people. Following divorce, the coquet can provide ancillary relief to either of the parties and depending on the circumstances of divorce and support required by either party. However, there are agreements that are make prior to the marriage (pre-nuptial) or after the marriage (post-nuptial) and their weights are considered while fashioning these beliefs. One such ruling is the case in the title where the ancillary proceedings involved an animate pre-nuptial agreement .The case of Radmacher v. Granatino brought a decisive ruling by the court of appeal as pertains to pre-nuptial agreements. The court ruled that if couples divo rced and had a pre-nuptial contract, none of the two parties were viable to make financial claims in contrary to the partner if form of proceedings. As pertains to the facts of this court, the contract was binding in August 1998 in German by Mr. Granatino a French man and Ms Radmacher a German. They both lived in London where their children were born in September 1999 and in May 2002 and they later separated in August 2006. Though the law was make in German, the proceedings following divorce were held in English court. It is of paramount importance to none that in English judicial system, pre-nuptial contracts are considered as opponents of public opinion and hence invalid and unenforceable. The courts in England and the united States have since proved it difficult for divorced couples to enforce proceedings as pertains to pre-nuptial contracts.... Baron J so far demoted the relevance of the contract on the grounds that there were no negotiations, Ms Radmacher did not disclose h er assets, and Mr. Granatino was not given any legal advice. Moreover she affirmed that it was unfair to deprive Mr. Granatino the claim especially since he was in need of the additional support and also that the two children bound them in the holy man and wife of marriage. However, this case was taken to the supreme and its discretion with reference to4 reviewed. The court of Appeal with reference to the case of Macleod v. Macleod5 held that the married man should be rendered as accountable to the agreement since there were no factors emulating the contrary. This served as a ruling in similar cases pertaining to monetary agreements among divorced couples who had made an agreement prior to their marriage. This case served as a service line to assess the weight upon which the agreement should be given in deciding the validity of the agreement. This agreement made prior to marriage is defined as pre-nuptial or ante-nuptial agreement and will be referred to throughout this discussion. With this genesis of the facts and ruling to the case, a discussion will be presented outlining the financial exemption following divorce that has resulted from the ruling in the case of Radmacher v. Granatino6. Discussion In Favor Of Financial Freedom Following Divorce omit of undue influence is a relevant factor that is considered in cases pertaining pre-nuptial agreements and aids in financial freedom of the plaintiff to litigation. With reference to the case of Mr. Granatino, the court took into consideration the willingness of the parties to enter into a contract prior to their universe married to each other. This is used to evaluate in the contract is legally binding