Validity of pre-nup agreements to be decided by Supreme Court

Gold digging by either party should be outlawed and pre-nups are one way of doing this so I say they should be allowed, and even encouraged! There's no way one party should be allowed to bleed the other just because they have been married for a few years.

Pre-nups were invalide and ignored when men had to pay up. Now there is a risk of women having to pay up things will change. The State and Law obeys the female.

Whilst allowance for children should be made, generally there is manipulation to achieve a greater share. Allowance should be made where there are children, but none if both are able to earn. Why should a spouse have to pay the other if they are able to work and earn. Length of marriage is hugely relevant.

Many women marry for ''security' and then become disillusioned. and should not profit when they wish to opt out.

If they chose not to train for a proper career, they should not get a free ride on divorce.

The courts gave up some 30 years ago the concept of assessing the marriage prospects, but ignore the now accepted wisdom that a marriage only works if the social engineer wants it to work.

Forget wealth in money cases, basic needs, ignoring 'have got used to the style of living', it is not difficult to again get used to a former life style. There should be allowances (modest) catered for where there are children. If able, apart for a period of adjustment, nowt..

Each party has different 'strengths' and wants and made choices. These strengths, assets (of whatever kind) and wants need to be balanced and taken into account.

Modern day practice. 'equality' now loom large in other areas and must be given due (considerable) weight.

This war is set to run and run but then reality seems to have been left at the external doors of the courts.

I can understand where children are involved that their welfare needs to be taken into consideration, but besides this I don't see what business it is of the department of justice to take a global postion on this. The point is that this is an agreement between a consenting couple. No-one is forced to sign anywhere unless they are willing to do so. The courts interest should only have limited powers in this respect. If anyone can just intervene and change the rules as they feel fit, then what is the point of a pre-nup anyway? Still I can fully understand that freedom and liberty are the last things on the minds of our leaders; being duplicitous in this matter.

i know lots of men who wont even live with women again because they have been stung .They will have a women but they wont move them in .after you have payed off your morgage and then had to get another to pay them off ,no wonder MEN KEEP WOMEN at arm length .if a pre live in agreement does not count you will see a older generation of single people who wont risk there capital again.