[2025] EWHC 2961 (Fam)

Whilst pre-nuptial agreements are becoming a regular feature of many peoples’ life choices in association with committed relationships, post nuptial agreements, in my experience at least, are less usual.

I have considered with care the document [125/510]. It is very detailed. Whilst it is correct to say that the real focus of the agreement relates to the parents’ finances, there is indeed provision for any future children, see section F [129/510] and section 9 [137/510]. Section G(d) [130/510] is particularly significant in that it records as follows: “This Agreement was entered into on the mutual understanding that in the event there is a Child (or children) of the Parties, [G], [K] and any Child of the Parties will live in England, unless otherwise agreed between the Parties”. The agreement also records the mother’s intention at the time to relocate to England, see section D [128/520] with reference to “…permanently relocate” in section G(c) [129/510].

I firstly accept the submission that this agreement is reflective of the parents’ level of sophistication that I have summarised above. That said, it was accepted on behalf of the father by Mr Gupta KC that this agreement is in no way determinative of the issue before me relating to habitual residence. It is reflective of the parents’ intentions at the time the agreement was settled. It is also of some significance, in my judgment, that this recording of the parties’ intentions predates the child’s conception and birth.

The consequential submission advanced on behalf of the father is that this aspect of the way the parents managed their affairs earlier in their relationship makes it unlikely, if not unconceivable, that they would not reflect a change in their intentions in a similar such document. I have considered that submission with care. However, it is correct to note that father himself refers in his evidence, on his case, to a change to co parenting: “….our agreed international co-parenting plan broke down between the coparenting two countries” [61/510]. It is clear that this change to “international co-parenting” was, on his own case, a change in their intentions which had not been reflected in a formal legal agreement with the benefit of legal advice. I digress to note that it would also appear that the proposed financial arrangements in relation to ownership of the flat were also not fully implemented in accordance with the agreement.