Katie Price & Peter Andre: Divorce in the limelight
12th May 2009 by: David Lillywhite
Another day, another high profile divorce set to dominate the magazine stands for the next few months. Yesterday, OK! favourites Katie Price (also known as Jordan) and Peter Andre announced their separation after nearly four years of marriage.
The notoriously PR-friendly couple have already asked for the media to respect their privacy in sharp contrast to the way their relationship has blossomed in the public eye through a series of reality television vehicles and countless photo shoots for several glossy magazines.
Andre is quoted as having confirmed in a previous interview with a national newspaper that the couple had signed a pre-nuptial agreement at his insistence prior to the marriage on 10 September 2005. In England and Wales, prenuptial agreements remain persuasive but not binding in spite of several cases that have given the judiciary the opportunity to redress this point. The Court of Appeal is currently hearing the case of Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress who is challenging the Court’s decision to award her husband £5.6 million following their divorce in spite of a prenuptial agreement that would have left him with nothing. On hearing the matter in the High Court prior to the appeal, Mrs Justice Baron echoed the comments of Lord Justice Thorpe (who is hearing the Radmacher appeal) in Myerson v Myerson and noted that the arrival of the children had “so changed the landscape".
In Price and Andre’s case, there are also the new rules on press access to family court proceedings to consider. For a couple so used to living their lives firmly in the spotlight (should the separation endure and divorce proceedings begin), how comfortable will the pair feel about the possibility of journalists being given access to their court proceedings? It should be noted that the media is not able to attend any hearing “conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiation” which effectively rules out the First Appointment or Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (the second major court appointment aimed predominantly at settlement). However, what they can attend are the parts of these hearings that are not used for the above, such as where the court is adjudicating on a dispute between the parties or giving directions. In this particular instance, Price and Andre may feel more comfortable making a joint application to the Court to exclude the media from the outset.
One thing is certain; the circus surrounding this separation has only just begun. Price and Andre have a devoted fanbase with an almost ravenous appetite for knowing every intimate detail about their relationship. While allowing the media inside any court proceedings concerning the couple’s finances or their children will increase the exposure for the couple, it may also represent an opportunity to educate the public about the divorce process. Ultimately, the Court (as well as Price & Andre) will be looking at what is in the best interests of the couple’s children with a view to protecting them from the intense scrutiny of the British media.
The notoriously PR-friendly couple have already asked for the media to respect their privacy in sharp contrast to the way their relationship has blossomed in the public eye through a series of reality television vehicles and countless photo shoots for several glossy magazines.
Andre is quoted as having confirmed in a previous interview with a national newspaper that the couple had signed a pre-nuptial agreement at his insistence prior to the marriage on 10 September 2005. In England and Wales, prenuptial agreements remain persuasive but not binding in spite of several cases that have given the judiciary the opportunity to redress this point. The Court of Appeal is currently hearing the case of Katrin Radmacher, a German heiress who is challenging the Court’s decision to award her husband £5.6 million following their divorce in spite of a prenuptial agreement that would have left him with nothing. On hearing the matter in the High Court prior to the appeal, Mrs Justice Baron echoed the comments of Lord Justice Thorpe (who is hearing the Radmacher appeal) in Myerson v Myerson and noted that the arrival of the children had “so changed the landscape".
In Price and Andre’s case, there are also the new rules on press access to family court proceedings to consider. For a couple so used to living their lives firmly in the spotlight (should the separation endure and divorce proceedings begin), how comfortable will the pair feel about the possibility of journalists being given access to their court proceedings? It should be noted that the media is not able to attend any hearing “conducted for the purpose of judicially assisted conciliation or negotiation” which effectively rules out the First Appointment or Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (the second major court appointment aimed predominantly at settlement). However, what they can attend are the parts of these hearings that are not used for the above, such as where the court is adjudicating on a dispute between the parties or giving directions. In this particular instance, Price and Andre may feel more comfortable making a joint application to the Court to exclude the media from the outset.
One thing is certain; the circus surrounding this separation has only just begun. Price and Andre have a devoted fanbase with an almost ravenous appetite for knowing every intimate detail about their relationship. While allowing the media inside any court proceedings concerning the couple’s finances or their children will increase the exposure for the couple, it may also represent an opportunity to educate the public about the divorce process. Ultimately, the Court (as well as Price & Andre) will be looking at what is in the best interests of the couple’s children with a view to protecting them from the intense scrutiny of the British media.
Add new comment