DB v PB

DB v PB

The prenuptial agreements were validly entered into and not vitiated by misrepresentation or undue pressure, but their enforcement would be unfair in the circumstances, particularly given the length of the marriage, the parties' contributions, and the needs of the children. However, the prorogation clause validly ousts the English court's jurisdiction over maintenance claims, restricting the court to property division only. The wife is entitled to half the net proceeds of the family home, but her maintenance and lump sum claims are stayed pending determination by the Swedish court. Provision for the children's housing and maintenance is made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Parties
Applicant: DB; Respondent: PB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Divorce/ancillary Relief/children Act/property / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Family home to be sold; net proceeds divided equally; wife's maintenance and lump sum claims stayed; £2m to be settled for children's housing; carer's allowance and periodical payments ordered.
Legal Topics
Prenuptial Agreements, Ancillary Relief, Jurisdiction (eu Maintenance Regulation), Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Property Division, Needs Based Awards, Prorogation Clauses
Family Law Private International Law Property Law Prenuptial Agreements Ancillary Relief Jurisdiction (eu Maintenance Regulation) Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Property Division +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DB

Applicant

PB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce/ancillary Relief/children Act/property / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prenuptial agreements are valid and enforceable under English law
  2. 2 Whether the prorogation clause ousts the English court's jurisdiction over maintenance claims under the EU Maintenance Regulation
  3. 3 Whether the wife is entitled to a sharing claim or only a needs-based award

Ratio Decidendi

The prenuptial agreements were validly entered into and not vitiated by misrepresentation or undue pressure, but their enforcement would be unfair in the circumstances, particularly given the length of the marriage, the parties' contributions, and the needs of the children. However, the prorogation clause validly ousts the English court's jurisdiction over maintenance claims, restricting the court to property division only. The wife is entitled to half the net proceeds of the family home, but her maintenance and lump sum claims are stayed pending determination by the Swedish court. Provision for the children's housing and maintenance is made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Court Disposition

Family home to be sold; net proceeds divided equally; wife's maintenance and lump sum claims stayed; £2m to be settled for children's housing; carer's allowance and periodical payments ordered.

Orders

  • Order for sale of the family home under MWPA 1882
  • Equal division of net proceeds of sale between parties