The decision in Standish Stands Up for Prenups – Huge boost for prenups as Supreme Court decision underscores asset protection

There was no prenuptial agreement between Mr and Mrs Standish, the subjects of the recent Supreme Court case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26.  If there had been a postnuptial agreement at the time Mr Standish transferred £80m into his wife’s name for tax planning purposes and for the benefit of his children, it is quite possible the case would never have reached the Supreme Court.   Nuptial agreements were therefore not directly considered by the Supreme Court on this occasion. However, at its core the case concerned when assets that are brought into a marriage solely by one party will be susceptible to sharing and so its reverberations will be felt widely throughout the family law world for years to come and are of prime relevance to the importance of pre and post nuptial agreements for married couples.

Protection of separate property

The judgment provides clear, principled guidance about the treatment on divorce of “non-matrimonial property” and “matrimonial property” and the circumstances in which, during the marriage, the former can alchemise into the latter. Those principles – and how parties may wish them to apply - are also of fundamental importance for parties to consider as they enter a marriage.  

An English nuptial agreement will have at the heart of its definitions and operative clauses what amounts to “Separate Property”, what amounts to “Joint Property” and how to approach each, both during the marriage and potentially upon divorce.  This is the precise focus of Standish. In many ways, the judgment could hardly be more closely aligned with this structure that underpins the whole philosophy of prenuptial agreements. Specifically Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens (who jointly delivered judgment) made clear that it is important to recognise that there is a conceptual distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and this distinction turns on the source of the assets and, importantly, that the time has come to make clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle.  Standish endorses an approach that seeks to insulate pre-acquired/inherited wealth from claims on divorce. 

Respect for autonomy

It is also relevant to recognise the general theme underpinning Standish. The Supreme Court placed at its heart a focus on the parties’ intentions and respect for individual autonomy and financial planning. The court endorsed Mr Standish’s wish to structure the family’s financial affairs in a particular way, whilst simultaneously protecting his pre-acquired wealth from claim by the wife in much the same way as a nuptial agreement seeks to do. 

Implications 

The Supreme Court’s decision sends a powerful message to couples, married and unmarried alike, in offering strong endorsement of autonomy in asset protection and a clearly articulated framework within which to ringfence wealth it is highly likely to fuel a huge surge in nuptial agreements – and, crucially, reinforce confidence they will be upheld.