|
Matrimonial property
The UK Supreme Court has delivered judgment in the landmark case of Standish v Standish, with implications for all divorcing couples regarding what constitutes matrimonial property and assets. This was a ‘big money’ case and focused on the sharing principle rather than needs or compensation. It examined the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, how to distinguish between them, and how to treat them in the context of divorce.
Standish v Standish: the facts
The case involved parties with significant assets who had been married for 15 years and had two children. The main issue was whether a portfolio created in 2017, valued at £80 million and transferred by the husband to the wife during the marriage for tax planning, should be considered matrimonial property and therefore subject to the sharing principle.
Mr Standish, a former UBS banker, transferred approximately £80 million of his assets — earned before and during his marriage — into his wife’s name in 2017, for tax planning and to benefit their children.
When they divorced in 2020, Mrs Standish argued that the funds were now matrimonial assets and should be included in the division of assets. The Court initially agreed, awarding her £45 million, with the division slightly favouring Mr Standish to reflect the original source of the funds. Both parties appealed.
How did the appeals go?
The Court of Appeal ruled that 75% of the transferred assets remained non-matrimonial, as they were pre-marriage wealth transferred primarily for tax and child benefit purposes. Only 25% was matrimonial, so Mrs Standish’s award was reduced to £25 million. Mrs Standish appealed again.
The Supreme Court (Judgment 2 July 2025) unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, making five key clarifications on asset classification and matrimonialisation.
The five takeaways from the Supreme Court decision
- Source matters: The distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property depends on the origin of the assets, i.e. whether funds are pre-marital, inherited, or gifted, rather than their legal ownership.
- Source trumps title: Simply because something is in joint names does not necessarily make it a matrimonial asset.
- Equal division applies only to matrimonial assets, not non-matrimonial assets, as a starting point, with flexibility based on individual circumstances. Non-matrimonial assets should not be subject to the sharing principle (although they can be subject to the needs or compensation principles).
- Matrimonialisation concept: Non-matrimonial assets can only become shared if they are treated as jointly owned over time
- Tax-motivated transfers are not enough: A shift purely for Inheritance Tax reasons does not make assets matrimonial.
Why does this case matter to you?
- High-net-worth divorcing couples: The ruling provides clearer guidance on safeguarding pre-marital assets during divorce, particularly when Inheritance Tax or trusts are involved.
- Everyone, regardless of wealth: The principles apply universally — even modest gifts or personal assets require careful management to prevent them from becoming matrimonial property.
- Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements: Anticipate increased interest. Clear agreements that specify intent and asset ownership will help avoid costly litigation.
Discover more about prenuptial and postnuptial agreements
Non-Matrimonial/Matrimonial property: What can you do now?
- Get your financial ducks in a row – record when, how, and why assets were acquired and used.
- Use clear intentions – if transferring assets, explain your purpose (e.g., tax planning, inheritance).
- Consider a nuptial agreement – even after marriage, these can help protect non-matrimonial property and assets.
- Seek advice early – proactive legal and financial planning is essential, especially before major asset transfers or divorce.
Matrimonial Property: Final words
In Standish v Standish, the Supreme Court reiterated that the origin and treatment of assets — not merely ownership — determine whether they will be split equally in divorce. Assets transferred for tax reasons do not automatically become shared matrimonial property. This ruling provides welcome clarity to family law and highlights the importance of transparency, intent, and planning.