It is unusual for family law cases to make it all the way to the UK Supreme Court, and the recent decision of the Court in Standish v. Standish [2025] UKSC 26 made headlines as one of the most significant rulings in the area of matrimonial finance in many years. It concerns the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in family proceedings, and how that will now be dealt with by the courts.
Background
The case concerned the long marriage of Clive and Anna Standish. It was a second marriage for each of them, and both had children from their previous relationships. They also had two children together. Clive Standish brought a significant amount of wealth into the marriage, which was built up during his lucrative career in the financial services industry. He retired from the financial sector approximately three years after the parties began living together, meaning that virtually all of his wealth and earnings were accumulated pre-marriage.
In 2017, approximately three years prior to their separation, Mr Standish transferred £78 million of assets into Mrs Standish’s name. The bulk of these assets were built up by him prior to the marriage. The parties acknowledged that the purpose of the transfer was to save on inheritance tax by taking advantage of Anna Standish’s non-domicile tax status in the UK. The plan was for her to receive the assets and then make onward transfers into discretionary trusts for the benefit of the parties’ children. This second step was never taken, and at the time of the parties’ separation and eventual High Court hearing in 2022, the £78 million (now grown to £80 million) remained in Anna Standish’s name.
When the matter first came to court in 2022, Anna Standish argued that the £80 million was now her separate asset, by virtue of its transfer into her name. Clive Standish argued that the £80 million was his separate asset by virtue of the vast majority of it being accumulated by him pre-marriage.
Mr Justice Moor found that although perhaps the £80 million in assets began their life as Mr Standish’s non-matrimonial assets, they had been “matrimonialised” by way of their transfer into Mrs Standish’s name during the marriage. In effect, the ruling was that the status of the asset changed from non-matrimonial to matrimonial in such a way that the sharing principle was now engaged and Mrs Standish was entitled to a presumptive 50% share. In the end, however, as a nod to Mr Standish’s greater actual contribution to the assets, Mr Justice Moor ordered a 40%-60% division of the disputed £80 million in Mr Standish’s favour. The effect of this was that Mrs Standish received £45 million of overall available assets and Mr Standish £87.6 million. There was no needs assessment performed, due to the high level of the assets and the acknowledgement that even the lower sum met Mrs Standish’s needs.
Both parties appealed.
In a fundamental shift, the Court of Appeal agreed with Clive Standish and found that Mr Justice Moor placed too much emphasis on the transfer of the title to the disputed £80 million. Lord Justice Moylan ruled that the source of the assets was the determining factor, not the title. The transfer of title did not change the fundamental non-matrimonial character of the assets and, accordingly, 75% of the £80 million that had been transferred to Anna Standish remained Clive Standish’s non-matrimonial assets and should revert to him with no presumption of sharing with Mrs Standish. Anna Standish’s award was reduced dramatically, from £45 million to £25 million.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, she appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal. In doing so, the Court enumerated five key principles, which now apply to financial remedies matters going forward:
- There is a clear difference between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets. Matrimonial assets are typically acquired by the parties (or one of them) during the marriage and reflect the fruits of the marriage itself. Non-matrimonial assets, including pre-marital or inherited assets, do not.
- The sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial assets. They can still be invaded to meet the needs of the parties or compensate one of them for relationship-generated disadvantage, but there is no presumption of a 50:50 share in non-matrimonial assets for each of the parties.
- Once an asset is recognised as matrimonial in nature, it should be shared equally unless there is a justifiable need to depart from equality to meet needs or compensation claims (although compensation claims are very rare indeed).
- Although it is possible to convert an asset from non-matrimonial to matrimonial during the marriage (referred to as “matrimonialisation”), the important considerations as to whether matrimonialisation actually occurred are the intention of the parties and the passage of time. Matrimonialisation, the Court found, rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared. The questions that need to be asked are factual, and the intentions of the parties are central.
- Tax planning does not lead to matrimonialisation. In this case, it was an acknowledged fact of the case that the transfer of the disputed assets into Mrs Standish’s name was done for tax planning purposes and with the view that she would make onward transfers to discretionary trusts for the benefit of the children. The Court found that tax-saving planning between spouses was commonplace and sensible, but without additional compelling evidence to the contrary, it does not establish that the parties now intend to treat any assets transferred for tax-saving benefits as shared between them.
Going Forward
Although the Standish v. Standish matter concerned a very obviously high-net-worth marriage, the effects of the Supreme Court judgment will reverberate in a wide-ranging way, especially when one or both of the parties wish to draw a distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, such as inheritance or pre-acquired properties.
Given that the Supreme Court has now determined that matrimonial assets (including those assets deemed to be matrimonialised) should be shared equally, it is now very important to get the nature of any disputed assets right.
It is clear, post-Standish, that the legal title of an asset is not determinative, and it is the source of an asset and how it was dealt with and treated by the parties over time that are the more crucial considerations. Transfers between the parties for tax planning purposes will not be enough to matrimonialise an asset, unless there are additional compelling considerations. How will these be evidenced? It seems to be that good record-keeping will be essential to the parties and acknowledged by the courts.
Although Standish did not delve into the parties’ respective needs in any detail, it is clear that in lower-asset cases, the parties’ respective needs will continue to be of paramount importance, perhaps making the matrimonial vs non-matrimonial argument a little less crucial. Of course, even if an asset is placed in the non-matrimonial category, it may still be invaded to meet the needs of the other party. In fact, the Standish matter has now been referred back to the High Court for an assessment of Mrs Standish’s reasonable needs and whether they can be met with £25 million of assets. Watch this space.
Lastly, the most important lesson to take away from the Standish decision is perhaps the need for a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement to be put into place before any non-matrimonial asset is transferred between the spouses or used to purchase or improve matrimonial property. With intentions of the parties being so central to the court’s eventual determination of the character of the assets and the potential factual disputes this will bring to the court, a written and properly executed nuptial agreement is anticipated to go a long way in crystallising and recording the parties’ intentions for future use and reference.
Imagine if Mr and Mrs Standish signed a post-nuptial agreement at the same time as making the fateful £78 million transfer in 2017? This article would have never been written.
