Modern Matrimonial Disputes Through the Lens of Standish v Standish
Created: 14 July 2025
In a major decision that could transform the boundaries of asset division in divorce cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the sharing principle doesn’t apply to non-matrimonial property.
The final judgment in Standish v Standish sparked debate among family law professionals regarding its true impact. At the heart of the case was a dispute over £77.8 million transferred in 2017 by Clive Standish, former chief financial officer at UBS, to his then-wife, Anna Standish. He maintained the transfer was part of a tax planning strategy for their children, and therefore should not be considered matrimonial property.
The couple divorced in 2020 after 15 years of marriage. In the original financial remedy proceedings, the High Court judge deemed the assets matrimonial and divided the total wealth 60/40 in the husband’s favour, awarding Mrs Standish £45 million. However, the Court of Appeal later discovered that at least 75% of the 2017 assets were non-matrimonial and reduced the award to £25 million, representing the largest cut to a divorce settlement ever ordered by an English court.
Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court. In their joint lead judgment, Lords Burrows and Stephens, supported by Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, and Lady Simler, agreed with the Court of Appeal's assessment. The judgment stated that the challenge for the wife was that there was nothing to show and that the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. The justices concluded the transfer was designed to minimise inheritance tax and was exclusively for the benefit of the children, not the wife.
Crucially, they found no evidence of matrimonialisation, the process by which non-matrimonial property becomes shared, and reaffirmed that the sharing principle does not apply to property that has not been treated as jointly owned during the marriage. The court stated that in this judgment, they thought it important to clarify that the sharing principle doesn’t apply to non-matrimonial property, adding that the 75% portion of the assets remains non-matrimonial property and is not subject to the sharing principle.
The Supreme Court’s judgment has drawn mixed reactions from family law experts. Some industry specialists believe the Supreme Court provided essential guidance on when assets that do not have an originating connection to the marriage partnership should be considered marital. This equips courts with a clear framework, preventing false arguments over shared ownership.
Many legal professionals recognised it as a “landmark judgment,” adding that it serves as a warning for spouses receiving large transfers during marriage. Spouses must ensure all intentions behind the transfer are properly recorded, especially if they hope to rely on shared ownership arguments in the event of divorce.
Others noted broader implications for wealth planning, with some anticipating a rising interest in prenuptial and postnuptial agreements, regarding them as the best possible way to protect individual assets. Some industry professionals stated that the ruling represented a major narrowing of the concept of matrimonialisation, warning that without clear evidence of shared intent, courts may move towards excluding such assets from division, causing a significant change in the legal landscape. Industry experts suggested the decision indicated a movement towards wealth preservation, favouring those looking to ringfence pre-marital or inherited wealth.
While the Standish ruling delivers long-awaited clarity on the status of non-matrimonial assets in divorce, its full impact remains to be seen. Whether it signals a tightening of judicial attitudes toward wealth redistribution or merely reinforces existing legal principles, one thing is clear: transparency and documentation around asset transfers during marriage are now more crucial than ever.