Contractually, mariage seems a very strange deal to get into. It basically says, the day after you get married your partner can ask for a divorce and take half your money, and on going support.

This couple divorced more than 20 years ago. Their kid is an adult (naturally). Neither of them had money when they divorced (he lived in a caravan), as they were 'new age travelers', what ever that is. Since then he's made a shed load and now she's come out of the woodwork and wants a slice.

I've no idea why it isn't laughed out of court, but the judges seem to make it up as they go along.

What I'd like to know is why can't you make your own contract terms when you marry, and for it to be binding? I can't see why two people who meet when they're middle aged, who aren't going to have kids and who both work, should hand over half their wealth to the other party, and continue to support them, should they split up.

This isn't about not supporting kids, and it's not about discriminating against women, because they can get shafted too. It's about a reasonable, modern way of living.

You can in the Netherlands (ask me how I know ) but I thought you can do it in most countries, pre-nup ???? In some countries it is even so that if you live together with a partner for x years, than it becomes a common law wedding (New Zealand) and the 50% automatically applies. So before that happens, if you're smart, you have to make sure there is something in writing splitting the assets in whatever way you agree .

Reading the article, I think that she might be able to claim a bit if she was the sole person raising their son. I mean if she was raising him on her own, that would have made it a lot harder for her to have her own career/company and judges normally take that into account. Then there is the question, how much did he provide in support to the ex and son after the divorce and that will be weighed in determination of the final claim amount.

Now I do think there should be a limit on the amount of years that an ex can claim support and it should take into account whether there are kids involved or not as that does make quite a difference for the parent who is actually raising them. I have been of work for a bit (by choice) and have gained a new appreciation for single parents and stay at home parents and both parents (working) than I had before. It is not as easy as I thought when I was still working to run the household although it is quite a lot of fun, usually, at least with my kids . MY 2010 5.0 SC Galway green and sand interior!!
Have the Faultmate MSV2 Extreme to be tinkering with the settings etc. !!

do the pre-nup

Its a claim for the upbringing of the child. The judges have said the amount she is claiming is a joke, but she does have a case for his contributing to the child's upbringing.
If there was no child then I think it would have been a non starter. Previously..
Vogue SE TD6
Defender 90 2.4
Defender 110 TD5
Vogue 3.5 EFI

Is it a case of him not paying in the past then?

Part of the husbands problem is that he has no records of a financial settlement of the divorce. As he can't prove that there was a settlement, she still has a claim (there is no statute of limitations for a divorce claim).

But mad.