Standish v Standish Supreme Court decision clarifies how pre-marital, or inherited assets, should be treated in divorce settlements

Prior to their marriage, Mr Standish had a successful financial career and had acquired a significant amount of his wealth. He met his future wife and married her in 2005. They later went on to have two children. He continued to work, whilst she was the homemaker with modest pre-marital assets.

Some years later, as part of a tax planning strategy, Mr Standish transferred £77 million to his wife to be placed in trust for their children. This never happened.  When divorce proceedings began in 2020, Mrs Standish claimed that the amount her husband transferred had been ‘matrimonialised’ and needed to be taken into account when it came to accurately calculating their final divorce settlement.

In 2024, the judge at first instance decided that the money Mr Standish had transferred to Mrs Standish had become “matrimonial property” and was subject to what is known as the “sharing principle”.  Credit to Mr Standish was given for the source of the funds, and Mrs Standish’s award was “rounded down” to about one third of the overall assets, which was valued at £45 million.

Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the transfer of money from Mr to Mrs Standish did not “matrimonialise” the property, and as such, it was not subject to the sharing principle.  Mrs Standish’s original award was reduced to £25 million.

Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court, but she was unsuccessful.  The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, and largely followed its reasoning.  The key factor was that a transfer of funds, with the sole purpose of saving tax, does not result in the “matrimonialisation” of assets.

Clear framework for future cases

Jonathan Miller, Senior Solicitor at Alsters Kelley Family: Divorce, Child Contact & Finances Department, said. “Standish v Standish has been a landmark case. We welcome the final judgement and the Supreme Court’s additional guidance. We hope that this will give the courts a clear framework for future complex divorce cases involving the sharing principle”.

Jonathan continues. “Whilst in this case the figures being discussed were high, the premise of the decision highlighted how non-matrimonial assets should be treated differently from assets accumulated during the marriage in cases of sufficient wealth. Courts must also consider cases of “need” and “compensation” with less assets and where the distinction between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property, and the source of those funds, is less relevant, or of no relevance”.

Initial fixed fee meeting for support and advice

We offer an initial fixed fee meeting where we can help and support you and provide initial advice in the divorce process, with no-obligation, for £360 including VAT. With offices covering Banbury, Coventry, Leamington, Nuneaton, Stratford-upon-Avon and Southam we are very accessible too. Please contact Jonathan Miller on 01926 356000, email jonathan.miller@alsterskelley.com for more information.