The history of prenups in England & Wales is a story of change — from being effectively ignored by the courts to carrying real influence today. Understanding that journey explains why a prenup is worth making now, and why it still is not automatically binding. Here is the short version of how attitudes, cases and proposed reforms have reshaped the prenup over the last century.
The old view: contrary to public policy
For much of the twentieth century, courts were reluctant to give prenups any weight. The thinking was that an agreement contemplating divorce was contrary to public policy, and that it was for the courts — not couples — to decide how finances should be divided. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court was given a wide discretion to achieve fairness, and a private contract was not allowed to remove it.
A gradual shift
Over time, attitudes softened, and courts began to take properly made agreements into account as one factor among many. Society’s view of marriage, divorce and financial independence was changing too — people married later, more brought assets into marriage, and second marriages became more common (all trends that help explain why prenups are far more common today). Judges increasingly saw sense in respecting what adults had freely agreed.
The turning point: Radmacher v Granatino (2010)
The decisive moment came in 2010, when the Supreme Court held that a court should give effect to a freely entered, fair agreement that both partners understood — unless it would be unfair to hold them to it. This is the principle that governs prenups today (see are prenups legally binding?). We unpack the case in detail in Radmacher v Granatino explained, and look at how later decisions have applied it in the key UK prenup court cases.
The Law Commission and proposed reform
In 2014 the Law Commission published Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements, recommending that "qualifying nuptial agreements" be made binding by statute where certain safeguards are met — full disclosure, independent advice, signing at least 28 days before the wedding, and provision for needs. That reform has not been brought into law, so prenups remain highly persuasive rather than automatically binding. Reassuringly, those proposed safeguards are the very steps that make an agreement robust today (see qualifying nuptial agreements).
Where things stand now
Prenups are still not automatically binding, but the direction of travel is clear: a fair, well-made prenup now carries real weight, which is why more couples than ever make one (see who should consider one). The safeguards that give an agreement force — disclosure, advice, fairness and good timing — are exactly the ones the reformers would enshrine in statute.
Marriage settlements: the Victorian ancestor
Prenups did not appear from nowhere. Their ancestor is the Victorian marriage settlement — an arrangement, common among propertied families, that placed assets into trust around a marriage, often to protect a bride’s wealth at a time when a wife’s property otherwise passed to her husband. These settlements were about preserving family fortunes across generations rather than planning for divorce, which was rare and difficult to obtain. When divorce law liberalised through the twentieth century, the idea of couples arranging their own financial affairs survived, but the courts’ growing power to redistribute assets on divorce meant a private agreement could no longer simply dictate the outcome. That tension — between what a couple agrees and what a court may order — is the thread that runs through the whole history and remains live today.
Why the courts resisted for so long
The old reluctance was not mere stuffiness; it rested on two genuine concerns. The first was public policy: judges worried that allowing couples to agree the terms of a divorce in advance might undermine the institution of marriage by making separation feel pre-arranged. The second was protection: the court’s wide discretion under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 existed precisely to prevent a weaker party being left destitute by a bargain struck when they had little power. Both concerns still shape the modern law — which is why even now a prenup cannot leave a partner in need or oust the court’s protection of children. The 2010 shift did not abolish those safeguards; it simply held that, where they are respected, a fair agreement should be honoured.
How the courts have applied Radmacher since
The years since 2010 have been a story of the courts working out the details in practice. Later decisions have tested how much weight to give agreements where disclosure was incomplete, where advice was skipped, or where one partner argued they signed under pressure. The consistent pattern is that agreements meeting the Radmacher conditions are upheld, while those that fall short are adjusted or set aside — a body of guidance explored in the key UK prenup court cases. For couples today, the lesson of this recent history is encouraging and concrete: the safeguards are well understood, so a well-made agreement rests on firm ground rather than guesswork (see do prenups work?).
The history of prenups in the UK, in brief
The history of prenups in the UK is a story of changing attitudes. For most of the twentieth century courts would not give them weight, treating an agreement that contemplated divorce as contrary to public policy. Attitudes softened over time, and the decisive moment came in 2010 with Radmacher v Granatino, which told courts to respect a fair, freely made agreement. Reform to make "qualifying" agreements binding has been recommended but is not yet law.
What the 2010 decision actually changed
It is easy to say "Radmacher changed everything", but it is worth being precise about what it did and did not do. Before 2010, a prenup was one factor a court might weigh, but there was real doubt about how much it counted. After 2010, the position was reframed: a court should give effect to a freely made, fair agreement unless it would be unfair to hold the parties to it. That is a shift from "the agreement is a factor" to "the agreement should be honoured unless there is a good reason not to" — a significant change of emphasis. What it did not do was make prenups automatically binding or remove the court’s discretion; the safety nets of needs and children remained fully intact. Understanding this distinction explains the slightly awkward phrase you will hear everywhere — "not automatically binding, but given significant weight" — which is simply an accurate summary of where 2010 left the law (see Radmacher explained).
Why reform has stalled
Given that the Law Commission recommended binding "qualifying nuptial agreements" back in 2014, couples often ask why the reform has not happened. The honest answer is that family law reform is politically low on the agenda and legislatively crowded out; successive governments have simply not found parliamentary time for it. The practical consequence for couples today is twofold. First, prenups remain governed by case law rather than statute, so the Radmacher approach still applies. Second — and reassuringly — the safeguards the reform would require are already the safeguards that make an agreement robust now: disclosure, advice, signing in good time and provision for needs. In other words, you do not need to wait for the law to change to make a strong agreement; building in the proposed safeguards today future-proofs it either way (see qualifying nuptial agreements).
What this history means for couples today
The practical lesson of this long journey is encouraging. A century ago a prenup was worth little; today a fair, properly made one carries real weight, and the safeguards that give it force are well understood and settled. You are not making an agreement into legal uncertainty — you are stepping into a mature, if still evolving, area of law with a clear body of guidance behind it. Because reform to make agreements automatically binding has been recommended but not enacted, the sensible approach is to build in the proposed safeguards now: full disclosure, independent advice, fair terms and signing in good time. Do that, and your agreement is well placed whether or not the law changes (see who should consider one).
History of prenups: FAQs
When did prenups become recognised in the UK?
The turning point was the 2010 Radmacher decision (see Radmacher v Granatino explained).
Are prenups binding in the UK yet?
Not automatically — reform has been proposed but not enacted (see qualifying nuptial agreements).
Why were prenups not enforced in the past?
Courts treated an agreement contemplating divorce as contrary to public policy, and kept the job of dividing finances for themselves.
What was Radmacher v Granatino about?
A dispute over a prenup that the Supreme Court upheld, setting the modern test (see Radmacher explained).
Will prenups become fully binding in future?
Possibly — the Law Commission has recommended it, but no law has yet been passed (see qualifying nuptial agreements).
What is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973?
It is the law under which a court divides a couple’s finances on divorce, and the source of the discretion a prenup cannot remove (see are prenups legally binding?).
Did prenups come from the United States?
The modern American-style prenup is more familiar there, but the idea has older English roots in Victorian marriage settlements (see UK vs US prenups).
How does the current UK law compare with Scotland?
Scotland treats prenups somewhat differently, though the underlying trend towards respecting fair agreements is similar (see prenups: England vs Scotland).
Create your prenuptial agreement online
UK Prenup lets couples in England & Wales create a clear, fair prenuptial agreement online from £199, with your document generated instantly as a PDF. See how it works or get started.
UK Prenup is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. A prenuptial agreement in England & Wales is not automatically binding, and both partners should take independent legal advice before signing.