Seminal case provides clarity on sharing non-matrimonial assets

Sometimes a legal case can represent a landmark ruling, and one that sets the precedent for future litigation. This is certainly true for the recent Standish v Standish case that was heard at the Supreme Court.

In what has become the largest ever reduction in a divorce award, this case has re-addressed what ‘the sharing principle’ means. Through its judgement, the Supreme Court of England and Wales has sent a strong, principled message – ‘only those assets genuinely treated as common will be shared.’

In this article we’re going to take a closer look at the case, and some of the key take-away points.

Background:

The divorce of Mr and Mrs Standish commenced in April 2020, but a few years prior to this, in 2017, Mr Standish transferred c.£80m of assets (pre-maritally acquired) to Mrs Standish for her to hold in trust for the future benefit of the children. These assets, however, were not put into trust but kept in Mrs Standish’s name.

During the proceedings, the main point for debate was whether the transfer of these assets made them available for sharing or whether they retained their non-marital status.

A previous judgement awarded Mrs Standish £45m out of the total £130m worth of assets, concluding that the assets transferred to Mrs Standish ‘matrimonialised’ and were therefore available for sharing.

However, upon appeal, Mrs Standish’s award was reduced to £25m, overturning the judgement that the transferred assets were matrimonial. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, marking the largest reduction on appeal of a divorce award.

Key points of the case:

Matrimonial Vs non-matrimonial assets

●      The Court reaffirmed the conceptual distinction between assets acquired before marriage by inheritance or gift to be classified as non-matrimonial. Only assets resulting from the “fruits of the marriage partnership” are matrimonial.

Scope of the sharing principle

●      The sharing principle applies exclusively to matrimonial assets – non-matrimonial assets are not automatically shared equally. Instead, it could only be considered under need or compensation principles.  NB - In practice, most cases where parties are not extremely wealthy have an element of need.

Equal Division as a starting point

●      For matrimonial assets, a 50:50 split remains the default, though deviation may be justified by various factors such as source of funds and needs. 

Why this decision matters

✔    Clarity and certainty: Wealthy individuals or anyone holding significant pre-marital assets now have firmer ground to rely on if structured correctly.

✔    Tactical red flags: Couples, and their legal or financial advisors, should be highly attentive when transferring assets – even innocently intended transfers may be scrutinised. 

✔    Fairness upheld: The Court balanced equality (for shared assets) and protection (for non-marital wealth), reinforcing legal consistency.

Take-away points

●      If your wealthy spouse asks you to protect non-marital assets, get legal advice, not just financial advice. I would encourage financial advisors to get lawyers involved as experienced lawyers can advise both sides if non-contentious.

●      Negotiate what you get for creating a tax benefit for your spouse (yes that’s possible and not inappropriate). 

●      This isn’t a magic loophole for most divorcing couples as ‘need’ still trumps everything. Mrs Standish received £25m so she couldn’t demonstrate need.

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26

Our team of experts are on-hand to provide practical and supportive advice throughout divorce proceedings. Please get in touch and let us help you secure the future you want.