Standish v Standish and the Supreme Court judgment

It is unsurprising that family lawyers and professionals working in and around the family law space have been eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Standish v Standish case. 

It was hoped that the decision handed down would provide guidance on the treatment of matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in financial remedy proceedings going forward. This is a considerable area of contention for divorcing couples, often, but not exclusively by any stretch, for high-net-worth (HNW) individuals. It has been difficult to give clients firm advice in the area and to answer questions on how assets might be treated in terms of the sharing principle.

The ruling was given on 2 July 2025 and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the wife’s case be dismissed on the basis that a transfer of funds made from the husband to the wife, with the intention of the funds being held in trust for their children, was non-matrimonial property and should not be governed by the sharing principle.

An overview of the case

Clive and Anna Standish (husband, wife) were married in 2005, second marriages for both parties. They had two children together, in addition to Anna’s three children from her first marriage. The husband had considerable pre-marital assets from employment.

The primary dispute was around a transfer of assets, c. £80 million in 2017 from the husband’s sole name into the wife’s sole name as a tax planning exercise, to be held in trusts for their shared children. At the time the couple separated, the wife maintained the assets in her sole name and trusts for the children had never been established.

The wife therefore argued that the assets were matrimonial and should be subject to the sharing principle. The husband dissented, arguing that the funds were his sole assets from before the marriage, and the transfer was intended as a tax planning exercise to save inheritance tax (IHT). 

The case was heard at the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the hearing before the Supreme Court took place on 30 April/1 May 2025.

Key points of the judgment 

The Supreme Court judgment examined the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, noting that the source of the assets is the key factor:

• Non-matrimonial assets will be pre-marital assets or assets that have been acquired by one or the other party during the marriage through external inheritance or gifts; and
• Matrimonial assets will be assets that are the product of the parties’ common endeavour.

The judgment confirms that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle, but could be subject to the principles of needs and compensation. However, non-matrimonial property can be ‘matrimonialised’, i.e., when there has been a transformation of the asset. The important consideration will be the treatment of the asset within the marriage.

Impact of the judgment 

Whilst it is not altogether surprising that the Supreme Court reached this verdict, given the decision by the Court of Appeal that found that the transferred assets had been generated before the marriage and should not be considered matrimonial, the impact it will have will be significant. 

It has been an interesting few years watching this case unfold. The lack of real guidance in the ‘matrimonialisation’ space has been challenging family lawyers for years. It has meant that advising clients has been difficult. Although there is a general understanding that inheritance, gifts and pre-acquired assets do not form part of the matrimonial pot (unless the needs of one or both parties cannot be met), having this solidified by the Supreme Court produces a sigh of relief.  

Going forward, for lawyers and advisory professionals, the guidance given will mean that finances, property, and shares, etc, will be retained by their original owner in the event of divorce. They will not be subject to the sharing principle and will only be considered if the needs of either party cannot be met by what is contained within the matrimonial assets.

Whilst this will certainly not be the last time a divorcing couple battle over their assets (and arguments about matrimonialisation will no doubt be on the rise), there will be more structure around this area, and professionals can be assured their guidance is Supreme Court ‘approved’.

Joanna Newton is a Partner at Stowe Family Law.