Supreme Court ruling in Standish v Standish and why it matters

This week saw the latest ruling made by the Supreme Court in the longstanding case of Standish v Standish. In all divorce cases the first task is to establish which assets are marital and need to be taken into account when considering who gets what at the end of the day. This was at the heart of the matter in Standish.

Why it matters

This landmark ruling establishes that pre-marital assets (those owned by one person before the marriage), even when transferred during marriage, won’t automatically become matrimonial property unless there’s clear evidence of shared intention and integration. It sets a legal framework for navigating asset division and underscores the value of documentation and nuptial agreements in wealth protection.

Background

The parties married in 2005. The husband, Clive Standish (retired UBS CFO) had significant pre-marital wealth, and a highly successful career. The wife, Anna, was a homemaker with modest pre-marital assets. Clive was a UK national and moved to Australia where he met Anna, an Australian national. They moved to the UK in 2010. Divorce proceedings began in 2020.

Towards the end of the marriage in 2017, as part of a tax planning exercise, Clive transferred £77 million of assets to Anna, who would remain non-domiciled, designed to protect against inheritance tax. The assets were to be transferred into a discretionary trust in Jersey for the benefit of their children (although this never happened). The case was focused on the impact of these actions.

At the time of the first hearing in May 2022 the total value of the assets which the court was considering, including those transferred to Anna, was £130 million.

Judicial journey

This week’s ruling was the third time the finances had come before the Court:

High Court (2022) – the Court ruled that the transferred funds had been matrimonialised awarding Anna £45m (approx. 60/40 split). Clive appealed.
Court of Appeal (2024) – the previous judgement was reversed with the Court ruling that only 25% of the funds were matrimonial assets and adjusted Anna’s award by £20m reducing it to £25m. This was the largest reduction ordered by a Court on appeal and Anna appealed against this decision.
Supreme Court (2025) – the Court unanimously dismissed Anna’s appeal, upholding the decision made by the Court of Appeal. It ruled that the funds remained non-matrimonial property since they were transferred solely for tax purposes for the benefit of the children and had never been treated as joint property. They were not, therefore, subject to the sharing principle.

Key principles

Non-matrimonial vs matrimonial property – the case affirms the principle that only matrimonial assets, being those generated during the marriage, are shared equally on a divorce.
Title is not a determining factor – the Court will examine how the assets were treated during the marriage rather than relying solely on whose name the asset is in at the time of the divorce. In this case the funds transferred to Anna by her husband.
Matrimonialisation – transfer of an asset alone does not mean it becomes matrimonial in nature. Evidence will be required of the asset being mixed and mingled within the matrimonial pot.
Tax planning - a transfer of an asset between spouses in a scheme designed to save tax, irrespective of the time period involved, will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between the spouses. Therefore, such a transfer will not normally constitute Matrimonialisation
Sharing principle clarified – non-matrimonial assets are not subject to equal sharing unless the Court needs to look to these assets under a needs or compensation case (not an issue here)

Outcome and implications

Anna was awarded £25m (consistent with the Court of Appeal’s order). The case provides clarity in the treatment of pre-marital wealth and inter spousal transfers. It also strengthens the need for the clarity afforded by prenuptial and postnuptial agreements; and it offers more certainty for high net worth couples going through a divorce and planning for inheritance.

Please do not hesitate to contact the family team at Howes Percival with any questions arising out of this judgment or to discuss pre or post nuptial agreements.

The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.

Get in touch

To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.

Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.

First Name

Last Name

Phone Number

Location

Email Address

Service Required:

Message