In his latest legal insight, Family & Matrimonial Associate Ryan Elliott discusses this widely publicised Standish v Standish divorce in England that was contested all the way to the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case:
Mr and Mrs Standish were married in 2005 and had two children together. They were an incredibly wealthy couple with Mr Standish having brought assets worth £57m into the marriage. In 2017, Mr Standish transferred assets worth almost £78m to Mrs Standish. His stated intention was that Mrs Standish would place those assets into trust for the children as part of a tax-planning exercise. The couple separated in 2020 with those £78m assets remaining in Mrs Standish’s name with no trust set up for the children. The couple were worth £132m upon separation and five years of court proceedings ensued.
At the original hearing, the High Court in London ruled that the £78m assets transferred by the husband to the wife were matrimonial property and therefore subject to division under the sharing principle. The wife was duly awarded £45m. This decision was appealed by both spouses. The Court of Appeal ruled that 75% of the £78m assets transferred to the wife was non-matrimonial property, and therefore reduced the wife’s award to £25m. The wife appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal that the wife should receive £25m.
Impact of this decision:
This landmark ruling from the Supreme Court, whilst largely expected given the judicial trends emerging in recent years, has provided welcome clarity on the legal principles guiding the division of assets between spouses in divorce, and, albeit to a lesser extent, the circumstances in which non-matrimonial property can be considered to have become matrimonial property and therefore subject to division under the sharing principle (one of the three principles cited in Miller v Miller: McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24).
The sharing principle, that both spouses may enjoy the fruits of the marriage, only applies to matrimonial property and does not apply to non-matrimonial property. Matrimonial property should generally be shared equally and this will be the appropriate and principled starting position. This is subject to the statutory factors that divorce courts are required to take into account to achieve fairness in the overall circumstances of each case.
Non-matrimonial property includes assets that one spouse has brought into a marriage, assets that one spouse has inherited during the marriage, and assets that have been gifted to one spouse during the marriage. The Supreme Court’s decision will benefit spouses who seek to protect such assets from claims of entitlement in divorce.
The Supreme Court has determined that non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial property over time. This transformation (which lawyers are calling ‘matrimonialisation’) can render these assets subject to claims of entitlement in divorce. The Court further determined that this concept of matrimonialisation should be interpreted neither narrowly nor widely, leaving room for judicial discretion in future divorce courts. To consider whether non-matrimonial property has become matrimonial property over time, divorce courts will assess how spouses have been dealing with those assets, their intentions with regard to those assets, and whether their treatment of those assets shows that they have been treating those assets as shared between them. The findings of this exercise will be determined by the unique history, factual background, and subjective nuances of those marriages that come before the divorce courts, shaped by the evidence given by the spouses and their witnesses.
A divorce court will not concern itself over who owns an asset on paper, who is the legal owner. It is the source of the asset and the spouses’ intended and actual treatment of the asset over time that is of critical importance.
The transfer of non-matrimonial property between spouses during a marriage for tax/estate planning purposes will not, without some further compelling evidence, be sufficient to generate a claim of entitlement in a subsequent divorce. Such transfers are not an act of matrimonialisation, or an election by the original owner to transform the non-matrimonial nature and quality of the asset.
In practice, most divorces are determined solely on the needs principle (the second of the three principles cited in Miller v Miller: McFarlane v McFarlane), perhaps because there is fairly limited wealth in the marriage, young children to be cared for, and/or one spouse has a limited income and work capacity. It is only in those divorces where there is a surplus of assets over and above the needs of the spouses that the sharing principle is engaged. Needs will generally be the only justification for a spouse claiming an entitlement to the other spouse’s non-matrimonial property, and the only basis for which a spouse may achieve a greater share of the assets than otherwise would be possible under the sharing principle (Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503 and WC v HC [2022] EWFC 22). The Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish does not alter this position.
The vast majority of divorces involve assets far removed from the eye-watering values referenced in Standish v Standish, but the legal principles that have now been considered and endorsed by the UK’s highest court will be relevant in any divorce involving an inheritance, gift, or pre-marital wealth.
Considerations for individuals:
Individuals seeking to preserve their wealth in a marriage or divorce will need to carefully consider their past, present, and future treatment of their assets, and be aware that decisions over time, no matter how seemingly inconsequential, could introduce the perception of an intention to share the equitable and beneficial ownership of such assets.
Whilst not applicable in Standish v Standish, pre-nuptial agreements and post-nuptial agreements will continue to offer wealthy individuals an early opportunity to categorise and protect their non-matrimonial property from claims in any subsequent breakdown of their marriage.
Early legal advice from a matrimonial solicitor, in conjunction with appropriate tax/estate planning regime that is regularly reviewed, is more important than ever for wealthy individuals who are seeking to protect assets from claims in divorce.
Contact Us
Cleaver Fulton Rankin are experts in Matrimonial Law and have the largest Private Client Department of any law firm in Northern Ireland. We are highly experienced in advising and representing clients in wealth preservation, estate planning, and divorces involving valuable assets.
Please visit matrimonial and family law for more information.
This article has been produced for general information purposes, and further advice should be sought from a professional advisor.
How can we help you?
Call us on the Belfast number below or send us a message and one of our team will be in touch.
028 9024 3141Send us a Message