Pre-nuptial agreements should be made legally binding unless upholding an agreement would cause significant injustice, the Solicitors Family Law Association (SFLA) said this week.

Such arrangements - also known as pre-marital agreements - have previously been dismissed by the government as contrary to public policy, although the courts have been inclined to uphold them where couples have entered into them.


However, the SFLA argues that more certainty is needed through legislation, adding that although pre-marriage contracts 'may not seem very romantic' to many couples, they could help to avoid headaches in the long run if a relationship does break down.


David Salter, chairman of the SFLA law reform committee that produced the report, said divorcing couples currently felt uneasy about what stance the courts would take with their financial affairs. He said many would welcome the chance to plan ahead.


'There is a need, at times, to protect the weaker person in a marriage, but where a couple choose to make an agreement in the full knowledge of its effect, they should be entitled to have it upheld by the courts,' he added.


Committee member Sarah Anticoni said: 'For some, it [a pre-marital agreement] can amount to sensible planning. Allowing couples to have their agreements upheld will minimise conflict on divorce.'


The SFLA report said anecdotal evidence from family lawyers across England and Wales suggests that increasing numbers of couples are exploring the possibility of making such agreements, but that they are deterred by the lack of legal certainty.


It added that Britain was out of line with many other countries in not recognising such agreements, and the failure to do so can lead to forum shopping.


A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokesman said there are no plans to change the law in this area. 'Pre-nuptial agreements are a matter for the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis,' he added.


Paula Rohan and Philip Hoult