It has been reported that the television personality and glamour model Katie Price is to divorce her third husband, Kieran Hayler. We don’t wish to speculate upon whether the divorce will happen, but an interesting point has arisen regarding the pre-nuptial agreement that the couple is reported to have entered into prior to their marriage.
The pre-nuptial agreement apparently provides that if the couple divorce, Ms Price will keep all of her money and property. However, it has been reported that if the divorce goes through Mr Hayler will seek a half share of everything she has acquired since they have been together, on the basis that he has been looking after her children, thereby enabling her to go out to work. He will apparently also argue that he and the children have become accustomed to their present lifestyle.
Will these arguments succeed?
Ms Price has five children: a son by the former footballer Dwight Yorke, who was born in 2002 and is disabled, a son and daughter by Peter Andre and a son and daughter by Mr Hayler. Whether Mr Hayler claims to have been looking after all five children, or only some of them, we do not know.
As we have explained previously, the English courts will give effect to pre-nuptial agreements, provided they are freely entered into by each party, with a full appreciation of the implications of the agreement, unless it would not be fair in the circumstances to hold the parties to the agreement. The question therefore is: do the arguments that Mr Hayler will reportedly put forward mean that it would be unfair to give effect to the pre-nuptial agreement?
We will deal with the second argument first, that Mr Hayler and the children have become accustomed to their present lifestyle. The court will be concerned that the reasonable requirements of the children are met, and that Mr Hayler’s own needs are met. However, this does not necessarily mean that he and the children should continue to enjoy their present lifestyle, so we have doubts as to whether this argument would be successful.
The first argument, that Mr Hayler has been looking after the children and thereby enabling Ms Price to go out to work, may have more weight with the court, particularly if this arrangement was not envisaged when the couple entered into the pre-nuptial agreement. In that case, the court might find it unfair to Mr Hayler to give effect to the agreement, and might therefore be prepared to adjust the terms of the agreement in his favour, although whether he would be awarded a full half share of everything Ms Price has acquired since the couple have been together is another matter.
- * * *
Family Law Cafe brings smart technology to complex family law issues, allowing customers to benefit from access to a friendly team of experts, assembled to the customer’s needs and budget.
Image of Katie Price by Southbank Centre [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
