Family analysis: Jennifer Perrins, barrister at 1KBW, considers the case of Versteegh v Versteegh which dealt with the importance of legal advice in relation to a pre-marital agreement and whether a party had ‘a full appreciation of the implications’, as well as the appropriateness of making a ‘Wells order’.

This Practice Note sets out the applicable principles in relation to disclosure prior to the entering into of a marital or civil partnership agreement, including pre-nuptial, post-nuptial or separation agreements. It considers the principles in the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher, and subsequent case law, together with practical and drafting considerations when dealing with disclosure. In Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino, Lord Phillips summarised (at para [69]) the position regarding disclosure by the parties prior to entering into a marital or civil partnership agreement and the factors that will be considered as to whether a party had ‘a full appreciation’ of the implications of the agreement, saying ‘Sound legal advice is obviously desirable, for this will ensure that a party understands the implications of the agreement, and full disclosure of any assets owned by the other party may be necessary to ensure this’, but that: ‘…if it is clear that a party is fully aware of the implications of an ante-nuptial agreement and indifferent to detailed particulars of the other party's assets, there is no

This Practice Note sets out the formal and practical matters to be considered when taking instructions for, preparing and advising on a marital or civil partnership agreement, and the general principles that apply. Such agreements include pre-nuptial (pre-marital), post-nuptial, separation and maintenance agreements. It also considers vitiating factors, reviews and variation and inheritance issues. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino, a marital or civil partnership agreement may be 'decisive' provided it is 'fair'. The approach to the drafting and formalities attendant upon a marital or civil partnership agreement may be significant in deciding whether and to what extent the agreement will be upheld. A party should not enter into an agreement unless they intend to be bound by it. Both parties should have the opportunity to take independent legal advice as to the terms of the agreement, see Practice Note: Marital and civil partnership agreements—independent legal advice. Financial disclosure should also be exchanged, see Practice Note: Marital and civil partnership agreements—disclosure. See also Practice Notes:

This Practice Note details the significance of independent legal advice in relation to marital and civil partnership agreements. It considers the guidance in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino, the approach of the courts to ‘bad advice’, and practical considerations such as the recording of advice and professional indemnity insurance. The line of authority derived from Radmacher demands a holistic focus on whether a party understood the implications of entering into the agreement. The issue of whether they received independent legal advice or not will form part of that consideration but will not, by itself, be decisive. It was confirmed in Radmacher that whether a party has had the opportunity to take independent legal advice on the terms of a proposed agreement will form part of the consideration of whether an agreement is ‘fair’. The position was described (at para [69]) as follows: ‘Sound legal advice is obviously desirable, for this will ensure that a party understands the implications of the agreement, and full disclosure of any assets owned by the other party may be necessary

This Practice Note provides guidance on specific considerations in relation to marital or civil partnership agreements where the parties have international connections or assets. It sets out the steps that should be taken to obtain advice from lawyers in other relevant jurisdictions, the application of the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino to cases with a foreign element and drafting considerations. Initial considerations The approach to the enforcement and validity of marital and civil partnership agreements varies in different jurisdictions. Jurisdictions where such agreements are enforceable include, for example, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA and many European countries. For practical guidance on the approach in England and Wales, see Practice Notes: Implications of pre-nuptial agreements within proceedings for financial provision and Implications of maintenance, separation and post-nuptial agreements within proceedings for financial provision. In England and Wales the agreement must be ‘fair’, and entered into by the parties with ‘a full appreciation of its implications’. In other jurisdictions the approach may be quite different. See also: Radmacher and the ‘foreign element’. Clear

This Checklist sets out the steps to be taken when preparing and drafting a marital or civil partnership agreement. It includes formalities, such as execution as a deed, obligations on third parties and the court’s jurisdiction. It also considers financial disclosure, non-matrimonial or non-civil partnership property, fairness, undue influence and independent legal advice in relation to marital agreements and may be used as an aide-memoire when drafting a marital or civil partnership agreement. It may be used in relation to pre-nuptial, post-nuptial and separation agreements. See also Practice Notes: • Implications of pre-nuptial agreements within proceedings for financial provision • Implications of maintenance, separation and post-nuptial agreements within

Marital privilege generally refers to legal rules that protect certain communications or evidence involving spouses in criminal and civil proceedings. In UK and Irish practice it is not a single codified privilege, but a descriptive term covering related concepts.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the main relevant doctrines are: (1) spousal competence and compellability as a witness for, or against, a spouse or civil partner, and (2) protection of confidential marital communications. These rules are largely statutory in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mix of statute and case law in Scotland and Ireland.Key issues include whether a spouse is compellable for the prosecution, any exceptions (particularly in domestic abuse, sexual offences and offences against children), and the limits of any confidentiality for communications during marriage. Marital privilege does not normally override legal professional privilege or override statutory disclosure obligations.Usage and scope differ between the four jurisdictions, so practitioners should check local evidence legislation and leading authorities rather than assume a uniform “marital privilege” comparable to some other common law systems.

Marital property describes the assets and liabilities built up by spouses during the marriage that are considered for division on divorce, dissolution or judicial separation, including in financial remedy/ancillary relief proceedings.Usage and scope vary by jurisdiction. In England and Wales, “marital” (or “matrimonial”) property is not defined in statute; case law under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 s25 distinguishes matrimonial property (typically assets generated during the marriage by the parties’ efforts) from non‑matrimonial property (e.g. pre‑acquired, inherited or gifted), applying the sharing principle subject to needs and compensation.In Scotland, the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 defines “matrimonial property” as all property of either or both spouses at the relevant date (usually separation) acquired during the marriage and before that date, excluding gifts or succession; it also includes the matrimonial home and its furnishings even if acquired before marriage for use as such. Fair sharing commonly starts from equal division.In Northern Ireland, the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 framework mirrors England and Wales; “marital/matrimonial property” is a case‑law concept guiding discretionary division.In Ireland, there is no statutory definition; courts exercising powers under the Family Law Act 1995 and Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 broadly treat “marital assets” as property available for adjustment, with treatment of inherited/gifted assets depending on needs, contributions and justice.

Employment analysis: In a claim of direct discrimination because of the protected characteristic of marriage, the employment tribunal must consider whether it was the claimant’s marital status which was the cause of the less favourable treatment and not the fact that they were married to a particular person. Further, an appropriate hypothetical comparator is someone in a close relationship but not married, and the tribunal must consider whether such a person would have been treated differently, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

A marital termination agreement is a practitioner’s shorthand for a negotiated written settlement between spouses on separation or divorce, setting out the divorce settlement: division of assets and debts, spousal and child maintenance, pensions, and parenting arrangements. It is not a defined statutory term in England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Ireland; it is a descriptive label.England & Wales and Northern Ireland: the closest instrument is a separation agreement/deed of separation. Financial terms are only finally binding when incorporated into a court order on divorce or dissolution-typically a financial remedy order by consent (consent order; “ancillary relief” in NI). Pension sharing and a clean break require a court order. Child maintenance is generally within the Child Maintenance Service’s jurisdiction, and child arrangements remain subject to the court’s welfare jurisdiction.Scotland: the analogue is a Minute of Agreement (often registered for enforcement). It can be set aside if not fair and reasonable at the time of contracting. Pension sharing requires a court order on divorce.Ireland: parties use a deed of separation, with agreed terms later made a rule of court on judicial separation or divorce. Pensions adjustment and most financial relief require court orders (ancillary orders).Best practice: full financial disclosure, independent legal advice, and prompt conversion into the appropriate court order.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 21 February 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into a cartel for the deep sea transport of vehicles (AT.40009). The cartels involved coordinating prices, allocating customers and information sharing. Latest development On 21 February 2018, the Commission issued its infringement decision after the five carriers settled with the Commission and acknowledged their involvement in the cartel. Fines totalling €395m were imposed. Total fines imposed on each carrier were: • MOL–€0 (as a result of being granted immunity )• NYK–€141,820,000 (including a 20% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling)• “K” Line–€39,100,000 (including a 50% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling)• WWL-EUKOR–€207,335,000 (including a 20% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling)• CSAV–€7,033,000 (including a 25% reduction for leniency and a 10% reduction for settling) Parties • CSAV, based in Chile• “K” Line, based in Japan• MOL, based in Japan •

Maritime arbitration is a recognised branch of dispute resolution in international trade and commerce. Maritime affairs to which consensually agreed dispute resolution may apply arise from the diversity of activity concerning the affairs of the sea: the financing, building, sale and acquisition of ships, the deployment of ships, the carriage of goods by sea, the insurance of ships, cargo and other marine adventures and the other contractual relationships arising from the use of ships, eg salvage. Historically, London and New York have been the dominant traditional centres of maritime arbitration. In recent years, Singapore and China have gone to significant lengths to develop arbitral systems and to encourage the maritime community to use their venues for the resolution of maritime disputes. The economic growth of the Asia-Pacific region and the consequent increase in trade flows to the region is being followed by a desire of the maritime community in that region to resolve their disputes locally. Types of maritime contracts—charterparties and bills of lading The principal commercial use for ships is the carriage of goods by sea. Various