Case No. EWFC-136

[2011] EWHC 2878 (Fam); [2012] 1 FLR 1100 in relation to another French case where there had been a “separation de biens” agreement. I rejected all the arguments that it would not be fair for me to uphold the agreement but I made it very clear that it might have been very different if the agreement had purported to exclude maintenance claims in the widest sense but I noted that the agreement there, as here, does not do so. 44.The second difficulty with the approach in Kremen v Agrest is that it flies in the face of the decision in Radmacher itself. Mr Granatino was, essentially, held to an agreement which even contained a waiver of any claim for maintenance. Like this Wife, he was highly intelligent and embarking on a career in business but he had not had independent legal advice or full disclosure. This court cannot be sexist. I will have to assess whether this Wife did have a full appreciation of the implications of the agreement. 45.Mr Boydell referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in