Solicitors in Lincoln, Dale & Co.

Family Law & Divorce Solicitors in Lincoln

Conveyancing Solicitors in Lincoln

Wills and Probate

Business Solicitors

Join Dale and Co. Solicitors Lincoln at the Philosophy Cafe!

The Philosophy Cafe has been running with the Lincoln Book Festival for the last 2 years, and previously as a regular event.

It is now hosted by the Healthy Hub, Beaumont Fee.

Crossley v Crossley

It is not surprising that  Stuart Crossley required Susan Crossley (nee Dean) sign a prenuptial agreement before he tied the knot, after all she  had already benefitted from generous settlements from her previous 3 husbands Kevin Nicholson, heir to the Kwik Save fortune, Peter Lilley  the adopted son of Thomas Lilley, chief of Lilley and Skinner shoes and racing magnate Robert Sangster, heir to the Vernon Pools fortune. 

However, after a 14 month marriage Susan Crossley felt that the prenuptial agreement promising not to pursue her husband's fortune was invalid due to the discovery of an additional £60 million held in accounts in Monaco and Andorra which she did not know about when signing the agreement.

Mr Crossley’s legal team had asked the courts to short-circuit normal divorce procedures because the marriage was short and childless, both partners had independent wealth and a prenuptial agreement was in place.

In that document the couple had agreed that in the event of a divorce they would retain their own assets and make no claims against each other.

His team argued that the facts could be heard in one day rather than enduring the usual proceedings, which might entail three hearings, a delay of up to 18 months and significant costs.

The High Court judge Mr Justice Bennett agreed that the case could be heard in one day in February, when the prenuptial agreement would be evaluated and a decision made there and then over whether to throw out Mrs Crossley’s arguments..

Yesterday, Mrs Crossley’s legal team argued that in agreeing such a procedure Mr Justice Bennett was denying her access to the courts. She would have no chance to present evidence about undisclosed assets that she claimed rendered the agreement invalid.

Her appeal was dismissed by three Court of Appeal judges.

Lord Justice Thorpe, who sat with Lords Justices Keene and Wall, praised Mr Justice Bennett’s innovative decision and said that judges had a duty to look at ways to shorten the trial process where “very rich people are demanding full-scale trials” and limiting the courts’ overstretched capacity.

Lord Justice Thorpe, giving the ruling, also called for legislation to clarify the status of prenuptial agreements. In Britain they are not legally binding, although judges do take them into account.

He said: “This is a quite exceptional case on its facts. If ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the courts will look to the prenuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors of the case but a factor of magnetic importance, then it seems to me that this is such a case.”

There was a “strong argument” for legislation, he added, given that the European Union considered it important to tackle the differences that existed on property-sharing between member states.

Mark Harper, a partner with Mr Crossley’s solicitors, said that the ruling was “a significant step forward for prenuptial agreements”. He added: “The Court of Appeal has shown that when a prenuptial agreement exists, the English courts can take a pragmatic approach and short-circuit normal court procedures, saving time, money and emotional distress for all involved.”

Mr Crossley said: “This is a fair decision. I am upset that our marriage failed.”

He met his future wife in the summer of 2005 and they were married 14 weeks later, in early January last year. But from June the couple lived largely separate lives and in August she filed for divorce.