It’s fair to say that lawyers tend to have an unromantic view of life. All lawyer jokes aside, many have suffered far too many hours locked in the library with their books to be able to remember the joys of human interaction. So when lawyers came up with the idea of the prenuptial agreement, naturally it wasn’t the most conducive idea to complement the prospect of marital bliss.

It is an inherently squeamish part of an already sensitive area of law. The fact is that many couples are simply uncomfortable with the idea of standing at the altar and saying “I promise to love, honour, respect, and not steal your money”. Until now they had little reason to do so because while prenups have always been considered by the courts, they have never before been given such “decisive weight”.

Cue the recent Supreme Court case of Granatino v Radmacher, the gut-wrenching sob story of a wealthy City boy who married a richer heiress. We should, for posterity’s sake, note that the banker has since become an Oxford researcher and in contrast to his previous salary of £325,000, now pockets a measly £30,000 per annum. Forgive us if our hearts fail to bleed for him.

This case, ruling on whether the court could give effect to the couple’s prenuptial agreement now puts in place an effective presumption that a prenuptial agreement will be upheld where it exists and has been freely entered into by the parties.

It is important not to get too wound up about this. Prenups are not suddenly concrete; it’s still for Parliament to decide whether or not they should have absolute force. And in the midst of the media storm, we should remember that any proposals to amend family law have always provoked the most vitriolic rhetoric of the tabloids-the phrase “undermining the sanctity of marriage” is a much-loved, classic response.

But we don’t have to side with the tabloids to see that there are valid reasons for the controversial status of prenups. The repulsive idea isn’t that couples should make adequate provision for a future event which may or may not occur (if this was the case, surely home insurance would also become morally objectionable?), it’s more that one of the parties is choosing to hide one of the cards under the table while showing the rest of their hand.

To take this argument to its logical conclusion, it is impossible to deny that the increasing power of prenuptial agreements will come at the expense of the weaker spouse, who must often make a choice between love and signing on the dotted line. Lots of us have blindly ticked the “Terms and Conditions” box as we order our latest online purchase, which has come back to bite us as we try to negotiate a refund. Surely the consequences of marital breakdown shouldn’t be dependent on such impulsive assent in the name of love?

You can imagine the re-writing of the archetypal fairytale, “and the Prince took Cinderella out of her life of servitude and bought her a pretty dress and tiara and forced her to sign an agreement to say that if he ever got off with another princess in the palace, she wouldn’t be entitled to any of the kingdom on the divorce settlement.” Or, as George Clooney said to his client in Intolerably Cruelty, “So you propose that, in spite of demonstrable infidelity on your part, your unoffending wife should be tossed out on her ear...” before smiling devilishly and making sure the court did just that.

But Catherine Zeta-Jones was a femme fatale who could look after herself. The court in Granatino v Radmacher may not be wrong on the facts, but that was the story of a banker who married an heiress. When this ruling hits your ordinary Joe Bloggs and his missus, it will be very interesting to see what the end result will be.

As Lady Hale said in her dissenting judgement “others may wonder whether people who are typically...in love can be expected to make rational choices in the same way that businessmen can.” Well, yes actually, everyone seem to be wondering...except perhaps some of the lawyers.