There was a landmark Supreme Court Judgment in Standish v. Standish around in July 2025 in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that matrimonial property consists of assets built up during the marriage, as the “fruits of the partnership”, as opposed to non-matrimonial property, being assets acquired before the marriage, gifts or inheritances. The latter are not automatically subject to equal division regardless of the fact that they may have been transferred into the transferee’s name.
In a unanimous judgment the Court dismissed an appeal brought by Anna Standish over the ownership of £77.8m which was transferred to her in 2017 by her former husband Clive Standish. He, however, argued that the money was part of a tax planning scheme and so non-matrimonial property over which she had no claim. In subsequent financial remedy proceedings, the Judge found those assets were matrimonial property and divided them 60/40 in the husband’s favour, such that the wife was awarded £45m. However, when the case went to the Court of Appeal 75% of assets then were deemed to be non-matrimonial and so the wife’s award was reduced to £25m. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court who found that the non-matrimonial property had not been matrimonialised, the transfer being to save tax and for the benefit of the children not the wife. As the money transferred had not been treated by the husband and the wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was correct and as none of this non-matrimonial property had been matrimonialised, it should not be subject to the sharing principle.
Only matrimonial property is subject to the sharing principle which generally presumes a 50/50 division and non-matrimonial assets fall outside this principle unless they become “matrimonialised”. Non-matrimonial property can only become matrimonial property if
- The owner intended to share it and
- Over time it was treated by the spouses as shared.
The Court held that the mere transfer even to a spouse does not satisfy this, if it was made explicitly for tax mitigation purposes e.g. inheritance or children’s trusts, unless there is other supporting evidence indicating an intention to share and as such, these do not convert the asset into matrimonial property.
This ruling sets a High Court precedent confirming that the source rather than the legal ownership determines if an asset is matrimonial and transfers for tax planning do not alone convert property into matrimonial assets.
This case clearly demonstrates the importance of documenting and evidencing intention when transferring wealth which could create a surge in pre and post-nuptial agreements to ring-fence assets and avoid disputes.
If a couple want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared, this must be recorded clearly in such a document as without that the default position may now be that such assets are to be treated as non-matrimonial. Whilst this case involves substantive sums, its legal principles have implications for all divorces, in stressing the importance of recording and documenting the intention behind a transfer.
This article was brought to you by Kidd Rapinet’s family solicitors. You can book an appointment with any of the family lawyers across our other offices in Aylesbury, Canary Wharf, Farnham, High Wycombe, Maidenhead or Slough, using the form provided. Please use the links provided to find more information on divorce or separation, child arrangements and other areas of family law.
These materials and content have been prepared for the benefit of their viewers/readers. They are intended for marketing purposes only and are of a general nature and do not constitute legal advice applicable to any particular facts or circumstances. Kidd Rapinet LLP and/or the author(s) accept no duty of care, responsibility or liability for any loss or damage which you or any third party may suffer as a result of any reliance or use by you or them of these marketing materials and content, except to the extent it is not legally possible to exclude such liability. If you require legal advice on your own situation, please contact us so we can discuss how we may assist.