To share or not to share, that is the question. The Supreme Court hands down judgment in ‘big money’ divorce case Standish v Standish and clarifies the position regarding matrimonialisation and the sharing principle

On 2 July 2025 the Supreme Court handed down their judgment, unanimously dismissing Mrs. Standish's appeal and upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal from 2024. This case provides important clarification concerning the concept of ‘matrimonialisation’ of assets and the application of the sharing principle in so called ‘big money’ divorce cases. This judgment will have a notable impact on how spouses may choose to hold and define their assets – it is a victory perhaps for the wealthy spouse looking to safeguard their pre-marital assets or separate property.

The decision in Standish is one of the most important judgments since the seminal House of Lords decision in White v White [2000] UKHL 54 at the turn of the millennium where the principle, that there should be no distinction drawn between the contribution of   a spouse who was a breadwinner and a spouse who was a homemaker, on a divorce, was established – i.e. their contributions to the marriage are equal.

Over the past 25 years following that case, family and society has evolved, and family law has had to keep up too - for example we now see nuptial agreements very regularly (a tool whereby parties attempt to protect their pre-marital or non-matrimonial assets and try to provide for as much certainty as possible upon a divorce) and the stigma of prenups being ‘unromantic’ or just for the wealthy has largely disappeared.

Given this societal context and how families may now choose to manage their finances, the decision in Standish is very important as it shows that the concept of matrimonialisation of assets may need to be scrutinised to see how the parties intended those assets to be held. A nuptial agreement may well help to provide evidence or a picture of the position – the Supreme Court said: “what is important … is to consider how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether this shows that, over time, they have been treating the asset as shared between them. That is, matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared.”  

This Supreme Court judgment came relatively quickly – just some two months or so following the hearing of the appeal on 30 April and 1 May 2025. The decision will hopefully provide some clarity and a clearer line of guidance going forward although, as above, how the parties dealt with and treated the asset will need to be looked at and considered rather than there being a definitive point in respect of source and title of the asset – could this be a ground for debate/argument?

We will look at the impact the decision in Standish will have on future practice, both from a Family law perspective and in relation to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

Background to the proceedings

This was a second marriage for both Mr. and Mrs. Standish. They married in 2005 and have two children together (and both have three elder children from their first marriages). Mr. Standish, described as a very intelligent and able man, had generated significant wealth in his career in the financial services industry and retired in 2007.

A crucial feature of the case is that in 2017 (only some three or so years before the marriage broke down), after receiving tax planning advice, Mr. Standish transferred circa £77 million (from funds held in his sole name and which were generated pre marriage) to Mrs. Standish. The funds were then held in her sole name. However, Mr. Standish maintained throughout the proceedings that this transfer was done to benefit their children (as the plan was for Mrs Standish to then place the funds into a trust) after receiving tax planning advice. Mrs Standish argued that the funds were  matrimonialised and thus subject to the sharing principle.

The case came before Mr. Justice Moor in the High Court who found that the 2017 transfer had  ‘matrimonialised’ the funds but, given the pre-marital nature of the funds, he decided that it was appropriate to divide the funds 60%/40% in Mr Standish’s favour. This led to an overall split of the total assets as: 34% to Mrs Standish and 66% to Mr Standish (Mrs. Standish’s award was quantified at approximately £45 million).

Mrs. Standish then appealed to the Court of Appeal with Mr. Standish cross appealing. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal, and allowing Mr Standish’s appeal, reduced her award by £20 million (over 40%) from £45million to £25million (reportedly the largest reduction ever made to a financial award by the Court of Appeal). The Court of Appeal said that it was the source of an asset that was important and that the concept of matrimonialisation should be applied narrowly.

The Supreme Court, whilst agreeing with the general outcome and award made by the Court of Appeal, applied slightly different reasoning. It is the treatment of the asset and how it is dealt with which is most important – what was the parties intention?

Looking forward- what will the impact of this case be in practice

Family

It now appears more important than ever that how property is dealt with and treated during a marriage will have a significant impact on the financial award that is made on a divorce – will it fall under the sharing principle or not? The Supreme Court have clarified that it is only matrimonial assets that the sharing principle applies to, but will this lead to lengthier court arguments with detailed background as to how assets were treated and debate about whether they have become matrimonialised?

In paragraph 56 of the judgment there is a helpful clarification in respect of transfers with the purpose of tax saving: “In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties’ dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them.”

It is likely that nuptial agreements as a wealth management and protection tool will have an even bigger role to play going forward – the clear setting out of separate property, and carefully defining pre-marital property (confirming its non-matrimonial nature) will help to protect that asset from the sharing principle. This is most important in ‘big money’ cases where needs are not in issue.

Whilst the Supreme Court is clear that title is not determinative, will savvy wealthier spouses take heed and manage their finances in a more distinct manner? It may ultimately be that spouses keep their property very separate (avoiding joint accounts/joint properties and investments) to try to show that those cannot be said to have become matrimonial (looking at how they have been treated and what was intended per Standish).

Spousal claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act)

In claims brought under the 1975 Act, the Court has the power to make an award where it is found that the deceased’s will (or the position under an intestacy) fails to make reasonable financial provision for a dependant of the deceased. In claims brought by the spouse of the deceased, the Court must take into account, as a relevant factor, the position as would have prevailed if the deceased and their spouse had hypothetically divorced on the date of death (rather than one of them having died). This is often referred to as the “divorce cross check”. This is an important factor when a 1975 claim is made by a spouse, although the Court will consider what weight to give the outcome on a hypothetical divorce when assessing the claim and will look at both the ‘sharing basis’ and the ‘needs basis’.

The Supreme Court’s clarification in Standish that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle on divorce (although it can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation) gives rise to interesting implications for 1975 Act  claims made by a spouse. It appears to clarify that, when evaluating the size and nature of the estate and the divorce cross check in a 1975 Act claim, the Court will now need to consider: i) whether any property in the deceased’s estate should be considered to be non-matrimonial; and ii) if so, in considering the divorce cross check, whether the Court should discount non-matrimonial property when deciding any award for the claimant.

In cases of a large estate which involves matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, defendants to a 1975 Act claim made by a spouse (for example the children of the deceased) are likely to raise the argument that non-matrimonial property should be “off-limits” to the surviving spouse when the Court considers its assessment of the size of the award. Conversely, a “needs based” reason for non-matrimonial property to be included when the Court carries out is computation would undoubtedly be raised in response on behalf of the claimant spouse and we would expect to see an increase in the number of claims put forwards as needs-based claims. Where a needs-based argument might be unattractive for a surviving spouse (for example where his or her needs are comparatively small), or on a sharing-basis where there is then a smaller pot of ‘matrimonial property’ following the decision in Standish, we would expect to see spouses seek to boost their claims in other ways – for example by relying on the clawback provisions included in the 1975 Act or the provisions allowing awards in relation to trust assets.

Conclusion  

As above, there may now be a clearer line for those divorcing as to how the sharing principle might apply to their assets, but will we see the floodgates open in terms of those seeking nuptial agreements – pre nups to plan for the future or, following this judgment, more post nups?

This is an important decision and reflects the general feeling that non-matrimonial property (pre-marital wealth, family inheritance etc) is exactly that –not a marital asset so it should not be subject to the sharing principle. In a family law jurisdiction where we have arguably some of the most generous parameters for the financially weaker spouse, this does set down clear guidance as to what will be subject to sharing– following a line of other relatively recent authorities clarifying where sharing has been in issue including Waggott (which confirmed that future earnings are not a matrimonial asset and thus not subject to the sharing principle).