AT v NT (No. 2) [2026] EWFC 161

If you have a pre-nuptial, post-nuptial or separation agreement, you may assume that its terms will decide what happens financially if the relationship breaks down. That may be true in many respects, but it is not the whole picture. The recent decision in AT v NT (No. 2) [2026] EWFC 161 is a useful reminder that interim maintenance is assessed differently from the final financial outcome.

The case will be of interest to anyone who wants to understand what financial support may be available before a final settlement is reached. It shows that the court will look at immediate needs and the relevant statutory framework, rather than simply ordering the level of support set out in a nuptial or separation agreement.

Interim maintenance is financial support paid by one spouse to the other while divorce or financial remedy proceedings are ongoing. It is intended to meet immediate needs before the court reaches a final decision about the overall financial settlement. It is not the same as the final division of assets, and it is not simply a way of enforcing what the parties may previously have agreed. In deciding how much interim maintenance should be paid, the court’s overriding consideration is what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Background to the AT v NT interim maintenance dispute

The case arose under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, which can allow the English court to make financial orders after an overseas divorce in certain circumstances. The parties, both Russian nationals, married in 2003 and separated in 2018. Following their separation, they entered into a separation agreement in England dealing with their financial arrangements. Divorce proceedings later took place in both England and Russia, with the Russian court dealing only with the parties' Russian property interests.

The wife argued that the separation agreement had only been partially implemented and that the husband had failed to provide adequate disclosure and comply with various court requirements. As a result, she sought interim maintenance and a legal services payment order.

Crucially, the wife contended that the court should closely follow the maintenance provisions contained within the separation agreement. She relied on the well-known Supreme Court authority of Radmacher v Granatino and argued that a separation agreement may be even more difficult to depart from than a pre-nuptial agreement. The wife claimed that she needed interim maintenance of £17,000pm which reflected the sums contemplated by the agreement.  

Can a nuptial agreement determine interim maintenance?

The central question was whether a nuptial or separation agreement could set the level of interim maintenance before the final financial outcome had been decided, even if that level was higher than the applicant's immediate needs.

For many clients, that is the practical concern. If a couple has already agreed a level of financial support, does that agreed figure set the benchmark for what should be paid while the case is ongoing?

The court's answer was clear: the agreement was relevant, but it was not decisive.

How did the court approach interim maintenance?

The judgment emphasised that a nuptial or separation agreement can be relevant, but it does not replace the statutory framework that governs interim maintenance applications. In this context, an agreement may help the court understand or limit the interim claim, but it cannot justify an award that goes beyond what is required to meet immediate needs or what is reasonable.

In other words, interim maintenance is not an exercise in enforcing contractual promises. It is an exercise in meeting present financial need pending final determination of the dispute.

What does this decision mean for pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements?

The decision provides valuable guidance for individuals who have entered into pre-nuptial, post-nuptial or separation agreements.

First, nuptial agreements remain highly influential documents. They may significantly affect the eventual outcome of financial remedy proceedings and can be persuasive evidence of what the parties believed to be fair.

Secondly, however, they do not provide a guaranteed route to obtaining higher interim maintenance. A spouse cannot simply point to an agreed figure in a nuptial agreement and expect the court to order that amount without reference to current needs.

Thirdly, the case suggests that agreements are more likely to operate as a ceiling rather than a springboard in interim applications. An agreement may help limit a claim or demonstrate that a claimant's asserted requirements are too high. What it cannot do is justify support beyond what is reasonably necessary to meet immediate needs.  

For financially stronger spouses, this provides reassurance that a historic agreement will not automatically expose them to interim liabilities exceeding what the court considers necessary. For financially weaker spouses, it highlights the importance of evidencing genuine present-day expenditure and need, rather than relying solely on agreed figures from a nuptial arrangement.

How JMW Can Help

Whether you are seeking interim maintenance or responding to an application, it is essential to understand both the strengths and limitations of any nuptial agreement. The interaction between contractual arrangements and the court's statutory powers can be complex, particularly in cases involving significant assets, international elements, or long-running disputes.

JMW's specialist family law team has extensive experience advising on pre-nuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements, separation agreements and high-value financial remedy proceedings. We regularly help clients navigate interim maintenance applications and develop strategies that protect their position while working towards a final settlement.

If you would like advice on how a nuptial agreement may affect your financial claims on separation or divorce, contact JMW's family law team for expert, pragmatic guidance tailored to your circumstances.