Standish v Standish

The background

The Husband had a very successful career in the financial services industry and generated the majority of his wealth prior to his relationship with Mrs Standish.

The event of importance took place in 2017, 14 years after the parties had begun their relationship with one another. At this time, the Husband transferred from his sole name into the Wife’s sole name funds of approximately £77.8 million, intended to be placed in a trust for their children. This transfer took place because the Husband was concerned with inheritance tax which would mean that if he died in the UK, he would have to pay approximately £32 million in UK Inheritance Tax.

The court of first instance found that the total value of the assets in the case was approximately £132 million. £112 million was said to be matrimonial property (which included the £77.8 million transferred to the Wife’s sole name), and £20 million was non-matrimonial property. The court of first instance awarded £45 million of the matrimonial assets to the Wife and £67 million to Husband – this represented a 40:60 split of the matrimonial assets in favour of the Husband.

The Wife appealed to the Court of Appeal claiming that she should have been awarded half of the total assets in the case. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the Husband’s cross appeal thus reducing the Wife’s award to £25 million. Importantly, the Court of Appeal found that the £77.8 million had not become matrimonialised by virtue of the transfer to the Wife and that 75% of the £77.8 million remained non-matrimonial property and was not subject to the sharing principle.

The Wife subsequently sought to appeal to the Supreme Court as she believed that the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the transfer of the £77.8 million to her did not result in matrimonialisation. She also said that the transfer was effective as a gift and the Court of Appeal fell into error by relying solely on the source of the transfer in determining that it remained non-matrimonial property.

The Supreme Court

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its judgement and dismissed the Wife’s appeal.

The judgement confirms that non-matrimonial assets, which are typically those acquired pre-marriage or inherited are not always up for sharing. The judgement specifically states that “it important to clarify that the sharing principle (as opposed to the needs and compensation principles) does not apply to non-matrimonial property”.

The Supreme Court has now drawn a firmer boundary between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, bringing welcomed clarity where once there was caution.