On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, a case that has reshaped the legal landscape regarding the treatment of matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in financial remedy proceedings. The decision provides critical clarity on the application of the “sharing principle” and the concept of “matrimonialisation”—issues that have long been the subject of judicial discretion and debate.
Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26
Background of the Case
The case involved the divorce of Mr and Mrs Standish. Prior to their separation, Mr Standish transferred approximately £77.8 million to his wife as part of a tax planning strategy. These funds were derived from wealth he had accumulated before the marriage, and thus were initially considered non-matrimonial property.
At first instance, the trial judge held that these assets had become matrimonial through the course of the marriage and awarded the wife a total of £45 million. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this, finding that 75% of the transferred assets remained non-matrimonial and were not subject to the sharing principle. The wife’s award was reduced to £25 million.
The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the assets had been “matrimonialised” and should be shared.
The Supreme Court’s findings
The Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision and setting out five key principles that now guide the treatment of matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets:
1. Conceptual distinction: There is a clear and necessary distinction between matrimonial property (MP) and non-matrimonial property (NMP). MP typically includes assets acquired during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties. NMP includes pre-marital assets, gifts, or inheritances.
2. Sharing principle limited to MP: The Court held that the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property. This marks a significant clarification, as previous judgments had left room for interpretation. Non-matrimonial property may still be considered under the needs or compensation principles, but not for equal sharing.
3. Equal division of MP: Where the sharing principle applies, the starting point remains an equal division of matrimonial assets.
4. Matrimonialisation requires intent and use: For non-matrimonial assets to become matrimonial, there must be clear evidence that the parties treated the asset as shared. This includes how the asset was used, managed, and perceived within the marriage.
5. Tax Planning Transfers Do Not Equal Matrimonialisation: The Court found that the transfer of assets for tax planning purposes alone does not amount to matrimonialisation. The intention behind the transfer and the subsequent treatment of the assets are crucial.
What are the implications of this judgment?
This decision is a watershed moment in family law. It provides much-needed certainty for high-net-worth individuals and their advisors, particularly in cases involving pre-marital wealth or family inheritances.
Key takeaways for practitioners:
- Pre-marital and gifted assets are safer from equal division, unless there is clear evidence of matrimonialisation.
- Tax planning strategies involving asset transfers must be carefully documented to avoid unintended consequences.
- Clients should be advised early on how to preserve the non-matrimonial character of certain assets, especially in long marriages.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Standish v Standish reinforces the principle that fairness in financial remedy cases does not always mean equality. By drawing a firmer line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, the Court has provided a more predictable framework for resolving financial disputes on divorce. That said, the Family Courts still have significant discretion, and the Supreme Court did not provide a rigid test to determine whether assets have been matrimonialised. Each case will still turn on its own facts, and different judges may interpret similar scenarios differently.
For clients navigating complex asset structures or entering marriage with significant personal wealth, this decision underscores the importance of early legal advice and clear financial planning. It also highlights the benefits of wealth protection in the form of pre and post-nuptial agreements, which remove uncertainty and provide a clear, written record of both parties’ intentions, making it far easier to protect non-matrimonial assets from being divided.
How can we help?
Emma Davies is a Partner in our Family Law team, which is ranked in Tier One in the independently researched publication, The Legal 500.
Emma specialises in divorce and financial settlements, which involve complex issues and substantial assets. She also advises on pre- and post-nuptial agreements, cohabitation agreements and separation agreements, along with private law Children Act disputes. Emma is a qualified collaborative law and Resolution Together practitioner.
If you need further advice on the subjects discussed above, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss your circumstances in more detail and give you more information about the services that our family law solicitors can provide, along with details of our hourly rates and fixed fee services.
For more information or advice, please call Emma or another member of our team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or contact us via our online form.
Contact us