Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/baa9ac20-1cee-11e0-8c86-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1AhqCMlc7

Rich couples might be able to ensure that some of their wealth is protected from divorce pay-outs under proposals contained in a consultation paper examining whether pre-nuptial agreements should be made legally binding.

The Law Commission, an independent body which assesses whether the law needs changing, is seeking public views on options for reform before recommending to government if legislation covering pre-nups is necessary.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/baa9ac20-1cee-11e0-8c86-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1AhqE5DW6

The move comes amid growing criticism that marital law needs to be overhauled after a series of huge pay-outs for ex-wives.

These include the £48m ($75m) awarded to Beverley Charman after 28 years of marriage to John Charman, the insurance magnate, and the £24m awarded to Heather Mills on her divorce from Sir Paul McCartney.

Pre-nups are not legally binding in England and Wales, unlike in other European countries or the US.

Divorce settlements are usually determined by the courts, which can take pre-nups into account when deciding pay-outs. However, a ruling last October in which Katrin Radmacher, the German heiress, defended a pre-nup successfully, established that agreements were enforceable in English courts if deemed fair by judges.

Professor Elizabeth Cooke, who is leading the Law Commission project, said potential options for reform could include pre-nups where couples agreed not to go to court to seek a financial settlement in the event of divorce.

Another option could include pre-nups that exclude wealth or heirlooms acquired before a marriage from assets that could be divided upon divorce.

This could also involve ring-fencing a family farm or a business built up before a marriage which might not survive if it were partitioned on divorce. “In terms of agreements, pre-nups do not have to be all or nothing ... it could be about a whole company or just a piano, for example,” said Prof Cooke.

Pre-nups might not just be for the wealthy but could also be used by middle-income couples seeking to protect a property. Lord Justice Munby, chairman of the Law Commission, pointed out that pre-nups were not just like any other civil contract because they involved the most emotional parts of people’s lives.

“Emotions are engaged in a way in which one suspects emotions are not engaged in litigation carried out through Queen’s Bench division or Chancery court,” he said. Marian Lynch, matrimonial law partner at Pitmans, the law firm, said the reform was long overdue, particularly given the increasing trend for people to marry more than once in their lifetime.