Miranda Fisher and Charlotte Posnansky write for the FT Adviser on the Supreme Court judgment in Standish - clarifying the reach and limits of the 'sharing principle' on a divorce
The landmark Supreme Court case involving Mr and Mrs Standish has significant implications for financial remedy cases in England and Wales.
The case revolves around the transfer of £77 million from Mr Standish to Mrs Standish before their marriage, intended to avoid inheritance tax by exploiting her non-domiciled status. However, Mrs Standish initiated divorce proceedings before the assets were settled in trust, claiming sole ownership of the appreciated assets, now worth £80 million. Mr Standish contended that he never intended to share ownership and argued against equal division due to the assets' origin.
The Supreme Court's decision on 2 July 2025 addressed whether the assets, transferred to Mrs Standish's sole name, should be considered matrimonial property, thus subject to sharing upon divorce. The court examined two approaches: the title-focused approach, which Moor J initially adopted, suggesting a 60/40 split in favour of Mr Standish, and the source-focused approach, favoured by the Court of Appeal, which reduced Mrs Standish's award from £45 million to £25 million.
In the article for FT Adviser, Miranda Fisher, Partner, and Charlotte Posnansky, Consultant, explain some of the challenges around the Standish case, identify why the courts decided the assets had not been matrimonialised and describe some of the implications of the case for other high-net-worth individuals.
Read the full piece in FT Adviser here.
