A Prenup, a Three-Day Hearing, and the Lesson for Every Divorce

A judgment published this week, EC v EC [2026] EWFC 275, involved a couple with millions in assets. You might think a case like that has nothing to say about an ordinary divorce. It does. The lessons in it matter more when the money is tight, not less.

What happened

The couple married in 2008, both for the second or third time, and later in life. Before the wedding they signed a prenuptial agreement. It said each would keep what they already owned, anything bought jointly would be shared equally, and the husband would make provision for the wife in his will.

After 16 years the wife applied for a financial order and asked the court to ignore the prenup completely. She said she had been pressured into signing, had no proper legal advice, didn't understand what she was signing, and hadn't been told the full picture about her husband's money.

The court held a separate hearing just to decide whether the prenup stood. It did. The judge rejected every one of her arguments.

Why she lost

Her own paperwork contradicted her. In her written statement she said her solicitor never took her through the agreement or explained the law. Her solicitor's file included a letter from 2008 saying the opposite. In the witness box she accepted the letter was right. The judge said that contradiction undermined her evidence generally.

Pressure has to be "undue". Most people signing a prenup feel some pressure, because the wedding might not go ahead without it. The courts have said that alone is not enough. Here the wife had her own solicitor, the agreement was signed two months before the wedding, and nobody raised a concern at the time.

She said the figures wouldn't have changed anything. She argued her husband's wealth had been understated. But she also told the judge she would have signed whatever he was worth. Once you say that, it is very hard to argue that missing information made a difference.

What she actually wanted

When the judge asked the wife what she wanted from the case, her answer was a home and an income for the rest of her life. That is a needs claim. The prenup never stopped her making it, and the judge said needs should have been the focus from the start.

To understand why, you need to understand what "needs" means in a divorce.

What "needs" means

When a court decides how to divide money on divorce, it works through a list of factors in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. One of those is the financial needs each person has, and is likely to have, in the future.

In practice, needs usually come down to two things:

Housing. Somewhere suitable for each of you to live. The court looks at what it would cost, what each of you could borrow on a mortgage, and whether children will be living with you some or all of the time. The aim is not identical homes, but a suitable home for each person given the circumstances.

Income. Enough to meet your reasonable living costs, now and in the future. That can come from your own earnings, spousal maintenance paid by your former partner, or a share of capital or pensions. Pensions matter here because they are how income needs are met in retirement.

If there are children under 18, their welfare is the court's first consideration. Their need for a stable home often shapes how the housing is divided. Child maintenance itself is usually dealt with by the Child Maintenance Service, not the court.

"Needs" does not mean "whatever you want"

Needs are judged as reasonable needs, and the court decides what is reasonable. It looks at:

• the money actually available
• the standard of living during the marriage
• how long the marriage lasted
• your age and health
• your earning capacity, now and in the future

So needs are not a fixed figure. A 60-year-old after a 30-year marriage will usually be treated differently from a 35-year-old after a four-year marriage, even with the same assets. And the needs of someone who lived modestly during the marriage will be judged differently from someone used to a more expensive lifestyle.

Needs versus sharing

There is another principle you will hear about: sharing. The starting point is that assets built up during the marriage are divided equally. But sharing only takes you so far.

If the assets are large, each person's needs can easily be met, and the argument is about how to share what is left over.

If the assets are modest, there is often nothing left over. Meeting both people's needs uses up everything. In that situation, needs decide the outcome, and one person can end up with well over half if that is what it takes to house them and the children.

That is the position in most divorces. The question is not "what is my half?" but "how can both of us be housed and get by on what there is?"

Needs and prenups

This is also why a prenup is less powerful than many people think. The Supreme Court said in Radmacher v Granatino (2010) that a prenup should not leave someone in real need while the other person has more than enough. If the only way to meet your needs is to depart from the agreement, the court can do that.

In EC v EC, the prenup was upheld, but it did not rule out maintenance, and the wife's needs for housing and income will still be decided at a full hearing.

Why this matters more in a modest case

When the money barely covers both people's needs:

• Every pound spent on the wrong argument comes out of the pot. A detour that costs a wealthy couple a small fraction of their assets can cost an ordinary couple the deposit on a flat.
• A prenup is less likely to decide the outcome. If there is no surplus, there is nothing left for the agreement to protect. The court looks at needs first.
• Costs orders can follow. If you run an argument that was never going to succeed, the court can order you to pay towards the other side's costs. In a small case, that can wipe out a real share of what you receive.

What you can take from this

1. Work out your needs early. Find out what suitable housing costs where you need to live, how much you could borrow, and what you need each month to live on. Get evidence: property details, a mortgage capacity letter, a realistic budget backed by bank statements.
2. Think about the future, not just now. Will your income change? When can you retire, and on what? Your pension position is part of your needs.
3. Check your statement against the documents before you sign it. Old emails, letters and bank records will be compared with what you say. If they don't match, the judge may stop trusting the rest of your evidence.
4. Pick your arguments. Before you challenge something, ask whether winning would change the outcome. If your real goal is a home and an income, put your time and money there.
5. If you signed a prenup, don't assume it ends your claim. It will be taken into account, but it cannot leave you in real need.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you are going through financial proceedings, get advice specific to your situation.