It is seen as a pragmatic – although unromantic – way for engaged couples to protect their finances in the event of a divorce.

But the majority of those who sign a pre-nuptial agreement are wasting their time, a group of senior judges warned yesterday.

Only the very wealthy can expect their wishes to be honoured.

The majority of those who sign a pre-nuptial agreement are wasting their time, a group of senior judges warned (stock image)

Most courts will ignore pre-nups when they divide up assets and instead base their decisions on fairness.

The caution undermines the pre-nup culture that has built up over the last seven years, since the Supreme Court ruled it was ‘increasingly unrealistic’ for judges to take no account of them.

It has seen the use of pre-nups expand from a simple attempt by a husband or wife to protect the assets they brought to their marriage to a range of special purposes.

These include the ‘infidelity penalty’ pre-nup, which cuts the share of an unfaithful spouse, and the ‘parental pre-nup’, in which parents try to protect the money they gave to a child to help them onto the housing ladder.

But in a guide aimed at the increasing number of those going through divorce who cannot afford lawyers, the Family Justice Council said that ‘for most people [pre-nups] will not be relevant on divorce’.

It added that in the eyes of the court, ‘meeting needs is the central factor on divorce’, and only the very wealthy – who have more money and property than their ex-partner could possibly need – can expect to benefit from having a pre-nup.

There is no legal definition of what a divorced husband or wife ‘needs’, but courts will usually try to make sure both parties live as closely as they can afford to the lifestyle they enjoyed before their divorce.

Judges will also put the needs of any children first. The guide, called Sorting out Finances on Divorce, said the only case where a pre-nup might be of use to an ordinary couple was when a spouse hoped to keep a specific item of personal or sentimental value, such as a family heirloom, pet or vehicle.

Most courts will ignore pre-nups when they divide up assets and instead base their decisions on fairness (stock image)

Written by a team of judges and lawyers led by High Court family judge Mrs Justice Roberts, it said: ‘The current law says that a pre-nup will only be followed by the court if the parties entered into it voluntarily and fully understanding what they were agreeing to, and even then it will not be followed if in the circumstances which exist at the point of divorce it would not be fair to hold them to the agreement.

‘The courts will not regard an agreement as fair for these purposes if it does not meet each parties’ needs and the needs of the children. It is only in cases where there are plenty of assets available to meet both spouses’ needs, and then a surplus left over, that a pre-nup is likely to have real value.

‘A pre-nup can be used to protect that surplus so that it does not have to be shared with the other spouse.

‘For the majority of couples, there is no surplus remaining after needs have been met, and so nothing in relation to which a pre-nup can make any difference.’

On heirlooms or treasured items, the paper said: ‘The one exception to this is where an individual might want to have a pre-nup to say that a specific item of property should stay with them in the event of divorce – an agreement of that type might be respected, provided that the court did not have to use that asset in order to meet the other spouse’s needs.’