Standish v Standish – Supreme Court ruling on matrimonial assets

The Power of Intention

The much-anticipated judgment of the Supreme Court landed today in the long-running Standish case – with a unanimous dismissal of the wife’s appeal.  This landmark judgment considered the application of the sharing principle and the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets – including how a previously non-marital asset can potentially transform into an asset to be included in the matrimonial pot.   

Background facts:

• The parties married in 2005, (having both been married previously) and had two children together. 
• The parties’ wealth was generated by the Husband (indeed, a significant proportion was amassed prior to the parties’ marriage) who then retired in 2007, with the Wife having been the homemaker throughout the relationship.
• Following inheritance tax planning advice, in 2017 the Husband transferred c£80million to the Wife, for her to transfer the assets into trust for the benefit of their children. 
• The monies remained in the Wife’s bank account and the trust had not been established when the Wife commenced divorce proceedings in 2020.

Initial hearing:

• The Wife sought to establish that the c£80million (referred to by the Court as the ‘2017 monies’) belonged to her as they were in her bank account, but that those monies should be shared between the parties. 
• The Husband argued that these were clearly his monies – he had been the source that had generated them- and the only reason they had been transferred to Wife, was in line with tax planning advice and to establish the trust for the children. 
• At first instance, the High Court Judge found that the transfer of the 2017 monies to the Wife, caused the asset to become ‘matrimonialised’  - a new word to aptly describe the metamorphosis of a previously non-marital asset, into an asset firmly in the marital pot for division. 
• However, he noted the original source of the funds and for that reason, deemed that those monies should not be shared equally. 
• With overall assets totalling c£132million, the Wife was awarded £45million, around a 60/40 split of the total assets.

Both parties appealed to the High Court:

• Wife’s position was that the very fact the 2017 monies were in her name meant they should be treated as her own, separate non-marital property. 
• The Husband’s position was that he was the source that had generated that wealth. 
• The Husband’s appeal was successful, with the Court of Appeal rejecting the notion that the 2017 monies had been ‘matrimonialised’ by virtue of the transfer to the Wife, and reduced her award from £45million to £25million.  This equated to 50% of the assets that the Court held to be matrimonial. 

The Wife appealed to the Supreme Court – and that is the judgment that was handed down today:

• The Court of Appeal’s approach was confirmed, with the Supreme Court dismissing the Wife’s appeal and upholding her award of £25million.
• The Supreme Court reaffirmed the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, looking to the source of the asset to assess this. 
• If pre-marital or acquired by inheritance or gift, an asset is non-matrimonial in nature. 
• Conversely, a marital asset is a product of the ‘fruits of the marital partnership’ or a common endeavour. 
• The Court confirmed that the sharing principle can only apply to matrimonial assets and that this would usually be an equal division. 
• The caveat of course being that it is possible for non-marital property to transform into marital property and thus fall into the sharing principle category.
• For this to be established, the Court stated it is important to consider how the parties had dealt with the asset and whether or not, over time, it had been treated as shared. 
• In the Standish case, the Court confirmed the Court of Appeal’s calculations that 25% of the 2017 monies had become ‘matrimonialised’ and thus that portion shared equally between the parties, but that the remining 75% remained the Husband’s non -matrimonial asset. 
• Importantly, they noted that the transfer was effected for tax planning reasons, for the benefit of the parties’ children – not for the Wife’s benefit.

TLT’s thoughts

Today’s decision has clarified the position as regards marital and non-marital property and how ‘matrimonilisation’ can occur.  The test for this has two elements – the original owning party’s intention behind the treatment of the assets and, whether or not over time, the assets have been treated as shared. 

The decision also allows a sigh of relief to parties seeking to give effect to tax planning advice and thus making transfers between spouses - as a transfer alone will not seemingly be sufficient to ‘matrimonialise’ the asset.  The intention behind the transfer in that scenario is one of tax planning / tax mitigation – not of sharing.  

From a practical point of view, recording and evidencing the transferring party’s intention clearly and unequivocally will be key.  The most effective way to do this is for parties to enter into a post nuptial agreement, prior to or at the very least, simultaneously with any such transfer between spouses.

Our private wealth team at TLT has significant expertise in both tax planning and wealth protection by way of pre and post nuptial agreements. Please contact us for bespoke advice.  Indeed, should you be in the position whereby a transfer has already been made to your spouse, for tax planning purposes, it may still be possible to put in place a post nuptial agreement to confirm the intention behind the transfer.  Such action at this stage will mitigate potential risks in the future, should your marriage break down. 

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at July 2025. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.