Examining the reported Peltz–Beckham prenuptial agreement, this article considers how English courts assess the protection of non-matrimonial wealth, and the principles of fairness, need, and sharing that guide enforceability.

Amid the widely reported tensions between Brooklyn Peltz Beckham and his parents David and Victoria Beckham, recent press reports have now claimed the existence of a rigid pre-nuptial agreement between Brooklyn and his wife Nicola. Nicola’s businessman and investor father Nelson Peltz is worth an estimated £1.2billion – compared to the Beckhams’ net worth thought to be around £500million – with Nicola reportedly receiving an allowance of £1million per month.

While neither party has confirmed its existence or terms, according to various reports the agreement stipulates that, if the parties divorce, Brooklyn will not have rights to any of Nicola’s family wealth; only a claim to half of whatever the couple earns together as a brand.

Fundamental Fairness

Although press reports suggest the Peltz Beckham pre‑nuptial agreement may be protective of non‑matrimonial family wealth, neither the governing law nor the terms have been publicly confirmed. As the law currently stands in England and Wales, pre-nups are now considered near-binding by the courts provided the terms are fundamentally fair. Both parties must enter into any such agreement of their own free will, without pressure from the other, or third, parties, and with a full appreciation of the implications of a nuptial agreement, i.e. following financial disclosure.

Given the wealth disparity between Brooklyn and Nicola – with Brooklyn’s sole net worth thought to be around £7.9millon and Nicola’s estimated at around £39million – it might be questioned whether the reported terms would indeed be fundamentally ‘fair’.

The act of shielding family wealth in this jurisdiction has been endorsed by the Supreme Court judgment in the landmark case of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. The majority held that there is nothing inherently unfair about an agreement that seeks to ringfence non-matrimonial property, such as family wealth and assets acquired before the marriage, and even assets that a party anticipates receiving from a third party during the marriage. In families with significant wealth or highly public profiles, pre-nups might be more widely drafted to include confidentiality clauses, or restrictions around business interests, IP and future earnings.

It is “paternalistic and patronising” for courts to override the terms of an agreement made between autonomous adults purely because “the court knows best”[1]. By reference to the section 25 considerations in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the agreement simply needs to satisfy the three principles of fairness established in White v White [2000] UKHL 54 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24: need, compensation and sharing.

Need, Compensation and Sharing

One factor the courts would consider in a dispute is whether a pre-nup leaves one party with less than their ‘reasonable needs’, while the other party is amply provided for. Despite Brooklyn having the greater celebrity profile, he is reportedly the less well-off partner – a factor which may become even more pertinent if he continues to distance himself from ‘Brand Beckham’.

If the marriage did end with a dispute over assets, under English jurisdiction Brooklyn would likely be the party arguing for his reasonable needs to be met, despite his higher profile. The concept of ‘reasonable needs’ would be applied subjectively, considering the standards of living the parties had enjoyed during the marriage. The greater the parties’ wealth, the greater the parties’ needs.

The courts’ interpretation of ‘need’ is highly discretionary, and much case law has built up around this point. If one party, for example, had already accrued significant personal wealth before the marriage, and in a divorce retains this personal wealth along with 50% of the joint wealth accrued during the marriage, would they be able argue that this does not meet their needs? This seems unlikely, but if the court establishes that either party’s needs are not met then the agreement will not be considered fair.

Once needs are met, the court would consider whether one party’s financial situation has been strengthened or weakened as a result of the parties’ allocation of domestic responsibilities within the marriage. While a court may look askance at a scenario where one party was to be excluded from claiming the fruits of any joint labours, this does not seem to be a concern in the reported Peltz Beckham agreement.

Finally, in terms of the sharing principle, fairness usually requires that each party should be entitled to share equally in the assets of the marriage, unless there is good reason to depart from this yardstick. Valid reasons might include the separation of non-matrimonial property such as assets acquired before the marriage and inherited wealth – which Nicola could potentially seek to rely on under the reported terms of the pre-nup.

While at first glance such terms may seem rather heavily weighted in favour of the far wealthier party, ultimately the English courts would be reluctant to interfere. If a pre-nuptial agreement is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications, and the three fairness principles are satisfied, the court will lend decisive weight to the agreement – and a return to Brand Beckham might start to seem tempting.

[1] Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 [78].