16 July 2025
The case of Standish v Standish centers around a high-net-worth couple whose marriage ended in 2020. The husband, a retired investment banker, transferred £80 million to his wife during the marriage, but not as a gift to be shared equally upon divorce. The wife, however, argued that this transfer had effectively "matrimonialised" the funds, meaning that they should be treated as part of the marital estate and split equally under the "sharing principle."
The Supreme Court, however, sided with the husband, ruling that non-matrimonial assets, such as pre-marital wealth and certain gifts, will not automatically be shared in a divorce unless there is clear evidence both parties treated them as shared property over time.
This decision represents a major shift in how non-matrimonial assets are treated in divorce cases, especially those involving substantial pre-marital wealth, gifts, or inheritances.
What Was the Dispute?
At the heart of the case was an £80 million transfer made by the husband to his wife in 2017. The money was originally part of a tax-saving strategy aimed at benefiting their children, not to create joint marital wealth. Although the wife and husband discussed placing the funds into offshore trusts for their children, these trusts were never set up, and the money remained in the wife’s sole name.
After their divorce, the wife argued that this transfer should be treated as part of the marital estate and divided equally. The High Court initially agreed with her, awarding her £45 million from the total sum. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that the funds were never intended to be shared. Today, the UK’s highest court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision and provided further clarity on how non-matrimonial assets are handled in divorce settlements.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
The key issue in the Standish case was whether the £80 million transferred by the husband became part of the matrimonial property, subject to the "sharing principle." The Court ruled no, emphasising that:
Why Does This Matter for Divorcing Couples?
The Court’s judgment reaffirms that non-matrimonial assets such as property acquired before the marriage, inherited wealth, or assets transferred for specific non-marital purposes will remain outside the scope of the "sharing principle" unless both parties have treated it as a shared asset over time.
In this case, the Court found that the transfer was a tax-planning measure and not a gift to be shared equally between the couple. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest the husband or wife ever intended to treat the £80 million as part of their shared marital estate.
What Is "Matrimonialisation" and Why Is It Important?
This ruling is pivotal in clarifying the boundary between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, particularly for high-net-worth individuals or those with significant inheritances or pre-marital wealth. Prior to this ruling, there had been some ambiguity in lower court decisions regarding whether non-matrimonial assets might be shared in exceptional circumstances.
Now, the law is clearer:
The Concept of Matrimonialisation
A key takeaway from the ruling is the concept of "matrimonialisation. The idea that separate property can become part of the shared marital estate if both spouses treat it as such. The Court emphasised that it is not enough to simply transfer title to an asset during the marriage; there must be clear evidence that both parties intended to treat the asset as joint property.
In the Standish case, the transfer of £80 million was purely for tax purposes, and neither party treated it as shared property. Therefore, it remained non-matrimonial.
What About Fairness and Financial Needs?
The Court’s ruling in Standish does not mean that fairness is disregarded in financial remedy cases. While the sharing principle may no longer apply to non-matrimonial property, courts still retain discretion to award financial support based on the needs or compensation principles under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. This means that a financially weaker spouse may still receive provision, but this will be based on factors such as need, rather than a claim for equal sharing of assets.
In the Standish case, for instance, while the wife initially received a £45 million award, the Court of Appeal reduced this to £25 million, based on the more limited scope of matrimonial property.
What Should You Take Away from This Case?
This Supreme Court ruling reshapes how financial remedy cases, particularly those involving significant pre-marital wealth, gifts, or inheritance, are handled:
How We Can Help
The Standish ruling has significantly clarified the boundaries between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, but navigating financial remedy cases, especially in high-net-worth divorces, remains complex. If you are facing divorce proceedings or need advice on financial settlement options, we can provide invaluable guidance tailored to your situation.
Our team can help you understand your rights and options regarding both matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. Whether you are dealing with substantial assets, inheritance, or complex financial arrangements, we are here to ensure you receive a fair and equitable outcome.
If you're facing a divorce or financial dispute, get in touch with us today.
Call: 01202 294411
Email: kingsway@absolicitors.com
Visit: Divorce, Dissolutions & Separation
