On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case of Standish. This has been one of the most frequently discussed and much anticipated judgments in recent times amongst family law practitioners. Exciting as it has been for the legal profession, what is the significance of this judgment on the general public?
The background
This was a case involving a very wealthy couple who had been married for approximately 15 years. The husband, Mr Standish, was a wealthy sheep farming tycoon and retired former CFO of UBS. A few years prior to their separation Mr Standish elected to transfer investments worth c£77.8m to his wife, Mrs Standish for the purposes of inheritance tax planning. At the time there had been a suggestion of potential changes to the inheritance tax rules by HMRC. To limit the tax risk and to protect the funds for his children, having taken financial advice, Mr Standish took protective measures by transferring the investments to his wife, taking advantage of her UK non-domicile status.
When the parties subsequently separated, Mrs Standish sought to claim that the investments that were transferred to her were a gift, adding that they had become matrimonial in that they were a product of the marriage therefore she was entitled to share in those assets.
The Court with its wide discretion initially determined that the marital assets including the £77.8m investments from 2017 should be split 40% to Mrs Standish and 60% to Mr Standish in recognition of his greater contribution. In monetary terms, this meant that Mrs Standish was to receive c£45m with the balance that she held to be returned to her husband. The decision was appealed. In the Court of Appeal, Mr Standish sought to argue that the assets that he had transferred for tax planning purposes consisted of substantial pre-marital wealth that had not become matrimonial, therefore those investments should not have been shared in the way that they were by the Court at first instance. The Court of Appeal agreed and held that 75% of those assets from 2017 were non-matrimonial, which resulted in a reduction of Mrs Standish’s award from c£45m to c£25m. This caused Mrs Standish to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision
After much deliberation and careful consideration of the facts, the Supreme Court dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal. The Court agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal and with Mr Standish’s arguments that the 2017 investments had not become matrimonial. As part of its determination, the Supreme Court considered how the investments were managed during the marriage. They looked at whether over time the assets had been treated as though they were shared by the parties but there was no evidence of this on the facts of this case. The understanding between the parties was that the 2017 transfer was geared towards protecting the investments from HMRC for the benefit of the children not for the investments to be shared. That factor strengthened the argument that there has been no matrimonialisation of the assets in question.
The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision
For wealthy divorcing couples this is a significant decision that highlights the pragmatic approach that will be adopted by the Court in cases where there are significant assets and where needs do not need to be considered. In such cases, the transfer of assets between spouses does not automatically make that asset matrimonial. Consideration will be given as to whether there is any evidence that the asset was intended to be shared and therefore placing it in the realm of being matrimonial.
Although the Supreme Court’s judgment helps wealthy couples, the principle from the Standish case may not automatically be applied in cases where there are limited assets and where needs are required to be met. It is important to remember that the Court maintains a wide discretion when determining the division of assets on divorce. There is no set formula, as each case is determined on its own unique circumstances. For greater certainty about the treatment of non-matrimonial assets, couples may wish to consider entering into a nuptial agreement.
If you are going through a relationship breakdown and require legal advice, please contact our specialist family lawyers on 020 7935 3522.
Whatever your personal circumstances, the above is intended only as a guide and we would advise that you contact us to obtain definitive advice.