Having just about shaken off the raindrops and put our wellington boots away for another year, the sunny skies and high temperatures of the past week have illustrated that summer is almost upon us.

For many couples, that means putting the finishing touches to plans for their weddings.

Arguably more than ever before that does not just mean deciding on outfits, guest lists and venues.

In my experience and that of my Hall Brown Family Law colleagues, an increasing number of individuals regard pre-nuptial agreements as an essential part of their pre-marriage preparations.

What is somewhat different is the age of those involved in such discussions.

In recent years, marriage has been in decline for almost all age groups below middle-age, with the fabled ‘silver splicers’ – those brides, grooms and civil partners either approaching or already of pension age – seemingly the only ones keen on it.

However, what we have seen in recent months is a rise in men and women in their mid-thirties wanting to have a pre-nup in place before they marry.

The fact that these are first marriages is also rather out of step with some of the data produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) of late.

Historically, pre-ups have been more common among those looking to protect wealth accumulated from their careers, inheritance or previous divorces.

One definite thread in the pre-nups which we have been handling is that they are largely driven by parents determined to protect family wealth. Again, in my opinion, incidence of that factor is higher than in the past.

I should point out that putting a pre-nup together is something which is not necessarily new.

Once regarded as the preserve of the very rich or celebrities, they gained a new profile and level of adoption following a landmark Supreme Court case in 2010, involving the German paper heiress Katrin Radmacher.

The Court ruled that pre-nups should be upheld if fair and freely entered into.

As a result, many more couples, family lawyers and financial advisers realised that the judgment made sense as a means of regulating not only who brought what assets into a marriage but how they might be considered or divided if the relationship foundered.

Despite objections about pre-nups being something of an unromantic prelude to marriage, it has been clear that individuals both of wealth and more modest means consider them to be a very useful way of avoiding lengthy, potentially costly and acrimonious litigation.

It is not an unrealistic consideration, given that no-one can really predict whether a marriage will endure.

What we do know, thanks to the ONS, is that 41 per cent of marriages are over before spouses can celebrate their silver wedding anniversary.

Given what I believe to be the strong merits of pre-nups, it is not a surprise that I am dealing with more couples wanting to put them in place before they marry this summer.

Yet although the Supreme Court judges hearing the Radmacher case decided that pre-nups should have “decisive weight” if properly drawn up, the documents are still not legally binding.

Four years after the Radmacher ruling, a Law Commission report recommended that couples should be allowed to enter into binding ‘Qualifying Nuptial Agreements’ – a proposal not taken up by government ministers.

Similarly, Keir Starmer’s administration has still not provided a full and formal response to another Law Commission document which identified scope for reform of the legislation by which divorcing couples divide their assets.

Eighteen months ago, the Commission set out four different options for change. In addition to enshrining significant relevant case law in statute, one of those proposed solutions – codification-plus – would offer even greater clarity for the future by allowing consideration of things such as pre- and post-nups as well the provision of spousal maintenance and guidance about whether the conduct of a husband or wife might influence a financial settlement on divorce.

It may be some time before we know if the Government does intend to act on the Law Commission’s suggestions.

In the meantime and despite some continuing uncertainty, I believe that those couples taking the initiative and putting pre-nups in place are doing the right thing.

I have found pre-nups to be incredibly useful in setting the tone for a relationship especially in relation to one often thorny topic.

One of the recurrent themes of those spouses whose marriages have not succeeded is disagreement about money.

By establishing a clear and open dialogue about finances before a marriage even takes place, it can help avoid those arguments thereafter.

I should stress once again that the process of drawing up a pre-nup requires the kind of full and frank disclosure about assets which is essential during a divorce.

Last year, one ex-husband managed to have the terms of a pre-nup thrown out because his wife was found to be “fraudulent” in not declaring tens of millions of pounds of assets while it was being prepared.

Having a pre-nup cannot insulate a relationship from the risk of a break-up but it can ensure that, should it not succeed, it need not be compounded by the tensions which are sometimes associated with rows about who takes what share of marital wealth.