On the 2nd July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a long-awaited judgement in the case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, offering important clarification on how non-matrimonial assets should be treated in divorce proceedings. But what does this mean in practice for family law professionals?
The general principle of division of assets upon divorce
When dividing assets in a divorce, the Family Courts in England and Wales apply principles derived from case law and the statutory framework under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
One key principle is the sharing principle, established in White v White [2000] and further developed in Miller v Miller and McFarlane v McFarlane [2006]. This principle recognises that marriage is a partnership of equals, and the starting point for asset division is typically a 50/50 split. However, this is not a rigid rule; other considerations, such as needs and compensation, may justify a departure from equality.
Courts also distinguish between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets:
- Matrimonial assets are acquired during the marriage and are generally subject to equal sharing.
- Non-matrimonial assets include property owned before the marriage or acquired through inheritance or gift, and are usually excluded from the sharing principle, unless they become “matrimonialised.”
The Standish v Standish Case
The central issue in Standish v Standish was whether substantial assets brought into the marriage by Mr Standish had become matrimonialised. Before the marriage, Mr Standish had amassed significant wealth, including investment funds, a farm and property in Australia, and a limited company.
In 2017, he transferred £77.8 million in investment funds to Mrs Standish, intending to establish trusts for inheritance tax planning. The trusts were never created, and Mrs Standish retained the assets in her name. The question was whether this transfer had the effect of matrimonialising the assets, making them subject to sharing.
At first instance, Moor J awarded Mrs Standish £45 million from total assets of £130 million, finding that although the funds were originally non-matrimonial, the transfer into her name had matrimonialised them. However, due to their non-matrimonial origin, they were not shared equally, resulting in a 60:40 split in Mr Standish’s favour.
The Court of Appeal overturned this, reducing Mrs Standish’s award to £25 million, holding that 75% of the assets were non-matrimonial, including the transferred funds.
Key Findings from the Supreme Court
Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a 20-page judgment.
The Supreme Court clarified the following:
- The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property.
- Matrimonialisation depends on how the parties treated the assets over time and their intentions, not simply on legal ownership.
- Transferring assets into a spouse’s name is not sufficient to matrimonialise them.
- Tax planning motives, such as inheritance tax minimisation, do not imply an intention to share the assets.
Practical Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that where assets exceed the parties’ needs, non-matrimonial property will not be shared unless it has clearly been treated as part of the marital partnership. Practitioners must carefully assess the purpose, intention, and use of such assets throughout the marriage to determine whether they have become matrimonialised.
This case serves as a reminder that family law is not formulaic; each case turns on its own facts, and outcomes can vary significantly depending on the circumstances and the wide discretion of the family court.
Have questions about how this judgment might affect your case?
Please contact Niamh Wilson at niamh.wilson@swinburnemaddison.co.uk or call our family law team on 0191 384 2441.
