Stuart and Susan Crossley were married for 14 months before they separated. It was former model Susan's fourth marriage, and both her third and fourth husbands have branded her a 'career divorcee'. She is reputed to be worth about £18m, but her husband's wealth is rumoured to be greater, at about £45m. The pre-marital agreement they signed showed their agreement both to walk away from the marriage with what they brought into it, should the marriage fail - however, Susan is now contending that the agreement is invalid because she alleges Stuart failed to tell her about "tens of millions of pounds" he has in offshore accounts.
The Court of Appeal has upheld Mr Justice Bennett's earlier ruling that the existence of the pre-marital agreement, together with the facts that the couple's marriage was so short, they are both so wealthy in their own rights and they have no children together, meant that their financial proceedings could be shortened to just one day. Lord Justice Thorpe said that the judge had been right to consider the pre-marital agreement as "a factor of magnetic importance".
Pre-marital agreements are not binding under English law, but work as one of the factors to which the court should have regard in assessing the financial entitlement of each party on divorce. In recent years the courts have been moving towards paying their terms much greater heed, as long as the agreements are fairly drafted and fulfil certain basic criteria. This appears to be the perfect situation for upholding an agreement. Susan's allegations of non-disclosure may still derail the pre-nup, but in reality, her own wealth and the brevity of the marriage may mean that the court is unsympathetic even if she proves her case.
If nothing else, the fact that Stuart Crossley has been given the opportunity to truncate his financial proceedings, and therefore also his solicitors' costs, to such a degree is enough to recommend a pre-marital agreement to every wealthy fiancee in the country.
Meredith Thompson