Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26

July 3, 2025

The recent Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 marks a significant moment in the English and Welsh Courts Family Law, particularly around how non-matrimonial assets are treated under the sharing principle in financial remedy cases.

Brief facts of the case

The husband, a retired financier with substantial pre-marital wealth, transferred approximately £77.8 million in investment assets to his wife in 2017. This was part of a tax planning strategy to avoid UK inheritance tax by exploiting his wife’s non-domiciled status. The funds were intended to be placed into offshore trusts for the benefit of their children, but the wife didn’t create the trusts and retained full control of the investment assets. Following the breakdown of their marriage in 2020, she claimed the investment assets had become matrimonial property subject to the equal sharing principle.

The Appeal

At first instance, the court accepted that the transfer had matrimonialised the investment assets and awarded the wife £45 million, finding she was entitled to 40% of the transferred investment assets. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge placed too much weight on legal title rather than the source and purpose of the investment assets. It ruled that 75% of the investment assets remained non-matrimonial, having originated from the husband’s pre-marital wealth, and only 25% was subject to sharing being earnings accrued during the marriage. This provided the wife with approximately £25 million (half of £50.48 million) in place of the initial judge’s award of £45 million, leaving the husband with approximately £107 million (which figure included his share of the matrimonial property and his non-matrimonial property) The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the transfer itself showed an intention to share the investment assets.

Judgement

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property, which consists of assets generated through the joint efforts of both parties during the marriage. The Court drew heavily on authorities including White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, Miller/McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, and K v L [2011] EWCA Civ 550. It clarified that simply transferring legal ownership does not convert non-matrimonial property into matrimonial property especially where the parties did not treat the assets as shared over time. The transfer was made for inheritance tax mitigation and wasn’t intended for the wife’s personal benefit, so no matrimonialisation occurred.

Importance This case is now a leading authority on how the courts should treat non-matrimonial assets in divorce proceedings. The judgment provides clarity and certainty, particularly for wealth protection and estate planning. It confirms that pre-marital, gifted, or inherited assets remain outside the scope of the sharing principle, unless there is clear evidence that the couple treated them as shared throughout the marriage. In doing so, Standish provides stronger safeguards for individuals entering marriage with significant personal assets and offers vital guidance to lawyers navigating high net worth financial disputes.

Morgan Kilmister
Paralegal – Family & Litigation Departments

This article is for general information purposes only. It does not constitute technical, financial, legal advice or any other type of professional advice and is no substitute for specific advice based on your individual circumstances. We do not accept responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the information in this article. For more information, please click here.