It has been an exciting week in Family law with the much-awaited Supreme Court decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26. In this blog we take a look at why this case became one of the biggest cases in recent years and how it helps separating couples moving forward.

Background

Mr Standish, a former UBS executive and retired banker, met Mrs Standish in 2003. The couple moved to Switzerland together in 2004 and subsequently married in 2005. The couple had two children together during their marriage and separated in 2020..

Mr Standish enjoyed a very successful career, acquiring substantial wealth prior to the marriage. The central issue of this case revolves around the transfer of approximately £77.8m from Mr Standish to Mrs Standish in 2017 (helpfully branded the ‘2017 Assets’ in the Supreme Court Judgment). Mr Standish had transferred the 2017 Assets into Mrs Standish’s sole name on the understanding that they would be used to establish two offshore trusts for the benefit of their children and for broader tax planning purposes. Mrs Standish failed to transfer the assets into trust and retained the assets in her sole name.

Parties' Arguments

Mrs Standish argued that the 2017 Assets had been ‘matrimonialised’ when they were transferred into her sole name and that made them subject to the “the sharing principle”. The sharing principle says that any assets which are matrimonial i.e. accrued during or as a result of the marriage, should be shared by the parties on divorce.

Mr Standish argued that the context in which the transfer took place (i.e., for the benefit of the children and for tax planning efficiency) and the source of the asset were crucial in determining whether the assets were matrimonial or non-matrimonial. It was his position that, as the assets were acquired pre-marriage and had been placed in Mrs Standish’s name purely as part of a tax planning strategy, they were non-matrimonial in nature and not open for sharing on divorce.

The Decisions of the Courts

• The High Court: In the first instance, the High Court agreed with Mrs Standish and decided that the transfer of the 2017 Assets had the effect of matrimonialising them, and as a result, the 2017 assets fell to be shared between the parties. The High Court ordered that Mrs Standish be awarded the sum of £45m, representing a 40:60 split in Mr Standish’s favour.
• Court of Appeal: Mrs Standish appealed this decision and Mr Standish cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal did not agree with Mrs Standish’s argument that the 2017 Assets became hers upon transfer and that equality should have been applied. Instead, the Court of Appeal adopted Mr Standish’s view and emphasised the importance of the funds being non-matrimonial in nature. Mrs Standish’s award was reduced from £45m to £25m.
• Supreme Court: Mrs Standish appealed once more arguing that the Court of Appeal placed excessive weight on Mr Standish’s contribution and that the transfer of the 2017 assets was a gift. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. Mrs Standish’s appeal was dismissed and her award remained at £25m.

The Principles

The Distinction between Non-Matrimonial and Matrimonial Property

When determining whether an asset is matrimonial property, the Court will use a qualitative approach, looking into the source of the asset and fairness, rather than merely legal title and ownership.

Matrimonial property is deemed to comprise of ‘the fruits of the marriage’ or the ‘product of the parties’ common endeavour’. The Judgment has made it very clear that legal title alone is ‘insufficient’ and there needs to be a clear intention to share and the asset should be consistently treated as jointly owned.

The Sharing Principle

The sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. The Supreme Court has made it clear that only those assets that have been wholly integrated into the marriage will be up for division between the parties on divorce, even if they have been transferred between the spouses during the marriage.

In certain circumstances, non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial property and become subject to the sharing principle, but this will be based on how the parties have dealt with the non-matrimonial property and whether they have treated it as shared during the marriage.

As such, if you are going through a divorce, it is important to be conscious that not all assets will be shared equally. The Court is benefitted by a discretionary system where all the relevant circumstances of a case are considered before determining how assets are to be divided.

Practical Implications

The decision has provided clarity for family law practitioners and reassurance for those who are concerned about protecting their pre-marital wealth. The judgment provides clear and succinct guidance on matrimonialisation and the division of assets where there are substantial pre-acquired assets involved.

This case has highlighted the importance of spouses clearly documenting their intentions when it comes to large transactions and assets during their marriage. Such a ruling only encourages the use of pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements to clarify how assets are to be treated on divorce.