International Prenuptial Agreements: How to Make a Prenup Work Across Borders

Hand wearing a wedding ring signs a document with a gold pen beside white flowers

Acton Afonso

23.10.2026

Key takeaways

In England and Wales a prenup is not automatically binding: the court follows it if it was freely made, properly understood and is fair today.
An agreement that is valid where it was signed, including a notarised German marriage contract, can still be reviewed by an English court applying English law.
Which country hears the divorce can matter more than the wording of the agreement, so international couples need to plan for where proceedings could start.
No agreement can override the needs of children, and a clause stopping a parent from applying to the Child Maintenance Service is void.
The safest approach now is independent advice in each relevant country, full disclosure and signing well before the wedding, at least 28 days as the reform proposals would require.
The Ministry of Justice consulted in 2026 on binding qualifying nuptial agreements; the consultation has closed, but the law has not changed yet.

More couples than ever marry with ties to two or three countries: different nationalities, homes that move with careers, and property, pensions or family businesses held abroad. A pre-nuptial agreement is usually written under one legal system, but if the marriage ends it may be tested under another, and the two systems may not agree on what the document is worth.

Is a prenup legally binding in England and Wales?

Not automatically. An English court keeps its power to decide the financial outcome of a divorce under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and a prenup is one of the circumstances it weighs. Since the Supreme Court decision in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, the court will give effect to an agreement that each spouse entered into freely and with a full understanding of what it meant, unless holding them to it would be unfair in the circumstances at the time of the divorce.

That last point is what surprises most couples. Fairness is judged when the marriage ends, not when the agreement was signed. Ten or fifteen years later there may be children, a career given up to care for them, or a move to a country where one spouse has no income. The court asks whether holding the couple to the agreement would leave one of them with unmet needs, or without compensation for a sacrifice made during the marriage. On how the couple’s assets are shared, by contrast, the court is most likely to follow the agreement. In practice, needs are the most common reason a court departs from an agreement: it will not leave one spouse in real need while the other keeps a comfortable surplus.

The same principles apply to agreements signed after the wedding, known as post-nuptial agreements, and to civil partners.

Why the leading case was an international prenup

Radmacher itself was a cross-border case. The wife was German and the husband French. Their agreement was drawn up by a notary in Germany in 1998, was expressed to be governed by German law, and was valid there. The couple married in London in November 1998, almost four months later.

When they divorced, the English courts did not simply apply the agreement because it was valid in Germany, and they did not apply German law to the division of assets. Instead they treated the choice of German law, under which the agreement was binding, as evidence that the couple intended it to be binding. The Supreme Court, by a majority of eight to one, gave the agreement decisive weight, although the husband still received provision linked to his role as father of their two daughters.

Two lessons follow for international couples today. A foreign choice of law does not displace English law in an English divorce. And the court’s attention is on the quality of the decision each spouse made when signing, not only on whether the right formalities were followed.

Will a prenup signed abroad be recognised in England?

It will be taken into account, but it will not be applied as foreign law. An English court divides assets under English law and asks the same questions it asks of an English agreement: was it freely made, did each spouse understand its effect, and is it fair to hold them to it now.

Agreements from civil law countries need particular care. In Germany, for example, a marriage contract must be recorded by a notary with both spouses present at the same time (section 1410 of the German Civil Code). Contracts of this kind often choose a matrimonial property regime, such as separation of property, and say little about what should happen on a divorce in another country. An English court will ask whether the spouses understood that the contract was meant to limit their claims if the marriage ended. A notary’s involvement satisfies the formal rules at home, but it is not the same as each spouse taking independent advice on how the document would be treated in England, and a material gap in advice or information can reduce the weight the agreement carries. In Radmacher itself the husband took no independent legal advice, and the agreement still carried decisive weight, because the court found no material lack of disclosure, information or advice.

Why the country of divorce matters as much as the agreement

The same agreement can lead to very different outcomes depending on which court hears the divorce. Many civil law countries give a valid marriage contract far more weight than an English court does, although some, including Germany, also check it for one-sided terms. An English court reviews it for fairness at the time of the divorce. For an international couple, the practical question is often not “is our prenup valid?” but “which court will decide whether it is?”

The courts of England and Wales can hear a divorce on several grounds, set out in section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. They include the habitual residence of the respondent, one year’s habitual residence of the applicant (six months if the applicant is also domiciled here), and the domicile in England and Wales of either spouse. Because domicile alone can be enough, a couple living abroad may still be able to divorce in England.

Within the European Union, the court first seised of a divorce generally takes priority, and any court seised later must stay its proceedings. This is why spouses sometimes race to issue proceedings in the country they expect to be more favourable. Since 2021 the courts of England and Wales have not been part of that system. Instead, an English court may pause a divorce if the balance of fairness, including convenience, favours letting the foreign proceedings go first.

A divorce abroad does not always close the door in England either. Under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, a former spouse who has not remarried or formed a civil partnership may apply to an English court for financial orders after an overseas divorce that is recognised in England and Wales. The court’s permission is needed and is only given where there is a substantial ground for the application. There must also be a connection with England and Wales: either spouse was domiciled here, or habitually resident here for a year, when permission is sought or when the overseas divorce took effect, or either spouse has, when permission is sought, a beneficial interest in a home here that was at some time during the marriage the matrimonial home. The court must also be satisfied that it is appropriate for an English court to make an order. Couples with international divorce risks should keep this route in mind when drafting.

Can you choose which law and which courts will apply?

You can record a choice, and it helps, but no clause binds every court in every country. Its value lies in showing what the couple intended and in helping lawyers in each country to draft consistent documents.

In the EU countries that apply Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes, spouses or future spouses may choose the law that governs their property regime, limited to the law of a country where either of them is habitually resident, or of which either is a national, when the choice is made. These rules apply to couples who married, or made their choice, on or after 29 January 2019. An English court, by contrast, will not apply a foreign law to the division of assets on divorce, although it will read a choice of law as evidence of what the couple wanted.

A clause naming the courts you would prefer to decide any dispute works in a similar way. It can discourage tactical proceedings and make outcomes more predictable. In England and Wales it does not give a court divorce jurisdiction it would not otherwise have, and it does not stop another country’s court from hearing a divorce it is entitled to hear. In the EU countries that apply Regulation (EU) 2016/1103, a written, dated and signed choice of court can, within the limits of the Regulation, give the chosen courts exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial property matters, though not over the divorce itself.

What an English court will not let a prenup do

Some limits apply to every agreement, wherever it was signed:

It cannot leave a spouse in real need, for example without a home or any realistic income, while the other spouse has more than enough.
It cannot prejudice the reasonable requirements of the children of the family. When deciding finances on divorce, the court gives first consideration to the welfare of any child of the family under 18.
It cannot stop a parent from applying to the Child Maintenance Service. Under section 9(4) of the Child Support Act 1991, a provision that tries to restrict that right is void.
It cannot remove the court’s power to decide. The agreement may carry decisive weight, but the final order is the court’s.

None of this makes a prenup pointless. A carefully prepared agreement that deals properly with needs and children is far more likely to be followed than one that tries to exclude every claim, and it still gives a couple much more certainty than having no agreement at all.

How to make an international prenup more robust

The steps below reflect what English courts look for and what the proposed reforms would require:

Independent advice for each spouse, in England and Wales and in every other country with a real connection to the marriage, with the lawyers comparing drafts so that the versions say the same thing.
Full disclosure of income, property, pensions, trusts, business interests and expected inheritances in every country, attached to the agreement in schedules.
Signing well before the wedding, at least 28 days before (the period the reform proposals use) and preferably earlier, so that neither spouse can say they signed under pressure.
Complying with the formalities of each relevant country, such as notarial form in Germany, and signing as a deed in England, as the reform proposals would require.
Stating the chosen law, the preferred courts and the couple’s intention that the agreement should apply wherever they live.
Providing properly for needs and for any children, and agreeing a review when a child is born, the couple moves country, or a set number of years has passed.
Where the agreement exists in two languages, using certified translations and stating which version prevails.

A move abroad is the moment most couples forget to revisit their agreement. If a new country could become the place of divorce, it is worth checking how its courts would treat the agreement and, if necessary, updating it with a post-nuptial agreement.

Will prenups become binding in England?

Not yet, but reform is under way. In 2014 the Law Commission recommended a new category of qualifying nuptial agreements that couples could rely on, and in December 2024 it published a scoping report on financial remedies on divorce. The Ministry of Justice then ran a consultation, A fairer end to relationships, from 5 June to 14 August 2026.

The consultation proposes that a qualifying nuptial agreement would be enforceable as a contract and not subject to the court’s usual discretion to redistribute assets, while the court would keep the power to make orders to meet needs, provided that:

it is a valid contract, without undue influence or misrepresentation;
it is made by deed and contains a statement signed by both parties;
it is not made in the 28 days immediately before the wedding;
each party received disclosure of material financial information when it was made;
each party received independent legal advice.

Under the proposals, neither spouse could waive the right to disclosure or legal advice, and an agreement could not be used to avoid meeting the other spouse’s financial needs or the needs of children. The government suggests a narrower definition of needs for these agreements, covering housing, capital, income and pension so far as resources allow.

As at October 2026 the consultation has closed and the government is analysing the responses. No response has been published, and the government has said that any legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. The consultation paper does not set out specific rules for agreements made abroad. Until the law changes, Radmacher continues to apply, so the sensible course for international couples is to meet the proposed safeguards now: it strengthens an agreement under the current law, although the consultation does not say whether agreements signed before any new law takes effect would qualify.

How Sterling Law can help

Our family lawyers in London advise couples with connections to more than one country on international family law matters, including drafting and reviewing prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements, working alongside lawyers abroad, and reviewing foreign marriage contracts for couples moving to England. Where a marriage has ended, we act in financial settlements in divorce, including disputes over where proceedings should take place.

For more on preparing an agreement, read our article on financial disclosure in pre-nuptial agreements.

If you are planning a marriage across borders, or already have an agreement signed abroad, contact us for advice on how it would be treated in England.

FAQ

Is a prenup signed abroad valid in England?

An English court will take it into account, but it is not automatically binding and the court will not apply the foreign law to divide assets. It asks whether each spouse entered into the agreement freely, understood its effect and whether it is fair to hold them to it now. Validity in the country of signing can be strong evidence that the couple intended to be bound.

Does a prenup have to be signed before a notary?

Not in England and Wales. Current law sets no formal requirement, but signing as a deed after independent advice and full disclosure is good practice, and the reform proposals would require a deed. Some countries do require a notary: in Germany, a marriage contract must be recorded by a notary with both spouses present. If the agreement may be relied on in more than one country, it should meet the formal rules of each.

Can a prenup decide child maintenance or where the children will live?

No. Where the children live is decided under the Children Act 1989, with the child’s welfare as the court’s paramount consideration. On finances, an English court gives first consideration to the welfare of any child of the family under 18 and will not follow terms that prejudice the children’s reasonable requirements. A clause restricting a parent’s right to apply to the Child Maintenance Service is void under section 9(4) of the Child Support Act 1991.

What happens to our prenup if we move to another country?

The agreement does not lapse, but the courts of your new country may treat it differently and may be able to hear your divorce. Before or soon after a move, take advice on how the agreement would be treated there and consider updating it with a post-nuptial agreement.

Are prenups going to become legally binding in England?

Possibly. The Ministry of Justice consulted from 5 June to 14 August 2026 on binding qualifying nuptial agreements with safeguards such as independent legal advice, disclosure and signing at least 28 days before the wedding. As at October 2026 no government response has been published and the law has not changed.