Marital/civil partnership agreements

The term marital agreement here covers both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements in the context of marriage and civil partnership.

A pre-nuptial (or pre-registration) agreement is a contract between the parties to an intended marriage or civil partnership that seeks to regulate their affairs in the event that their relationship ends. For the majority, financial arrangements will be the main focus of such agreements, but the parties may also agree in what jurisdiction their divorce or dissolution proceedings will proceed.

Pre-nuptial agreements are not formally binding in England and Wales. They have been regarded by the court as persuasive and even ‘decisive’ and a pre-nuptial agreement may influence the outcome of an application for a financial remedy, either as part of all the circumstances of the case that

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

HMRC reminds customers to file Self Assessment ahead of 31 January

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has warned that 5.65 million people still need to file their Self Assessment tax return ahead of the 31 January 2025 deadline, after 6.36 million taxpayers submitted theirs and thousands filed over New Year. It says customers risk late filing penalties and urges anyone unable to meet the deadline to inform HMRC before 31 January 2025, while also warning Self Assessment customers of increased scam risks. HMRC also highlights changes affecting those paying the High Income Child Benefit Charge, upcoming Making Tax Digital requirements from 6 April 2026, and the need for Capital Gains Tax adjustments on assets sold after 30 October 2024, and confirms that Winter Fuel Payments do not need to be included on the 2024–2025 return.

HMCTS publishes guidance on applications to reclaim money paid into the High Court Chancery Division

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has published guidance on applications to reclaim money held by the High Court, Chancery Division. The guidance, published on 18 December 2025, concerns the following three scenarios: (i) surplus funds from property repossession where entitled parties cannot be located; (ii) trust money paid into court by trustees unable to locate beneficiaries; and (iii) funds relating to dissentient shareholders in company takeovers. Applicants must complete Form N244 (application notice) and Form CH60 (evidence of identity and declaration) as well as paying a non-refundable fee (currently £61). Before applying, applicants must check the unclaimed court money service and may need to ask the Court Funds Office to conduct a search for the amount held. Solicitors and trust research/beneficiary tracing firms must file via HMCTS E-Filing, while litigants in person may use either online filing or postal submission to the Chancery Division Miscellaneous Payments Team.

Scottish Government launches consultation on reform of cohabitants’ rights and marriage law

The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on proposed reforms to Sections 25–28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 (FL(S)A 2006), focusing on the financial rights of cohabitants following the death of a partner who leaves no will. The consultation follows recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission’s (SLC) 2022 ‘Report on Cohabitation’ and seeks views on whether the current framework provides fair and adequate protection, including a proposed extension of the time limit for making a claim from six months to 12 months, aligning the provision with section 78 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024. The consultation closes on 21 April 2026.

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.