Legal
What's Matrimonial Wealth And What's Not – Implications From The Standish Case

In one of the most anticipated divorce law rulings in the UK for many years, lawyers consider the implications of the Wednesday ruling in the Supreme Court on a UHNW couple and their dispute over how wealth is carved up. The ruling could also boost London's standing as a "divorce" jurisdiction.
Lawyers have responded to a UK Supreme Court ruling this week
that said a former banker who gave his wife £78 million ($106.4
million) will not have to split it evenly with her after their
divorce. The case, which highlights how assets are divided up
following the end of a marriage, has major implications for
marital law.
One impact appears to be that the case shows why pre-nuptial
agreements are now essential. It also shows that there is a clear
distinction between the source of wealth and title. Another way
to put it is that it draws a line between matrimonial and
non-matrimonial wealth. (See
this article from a few days earlier that flagged the salient
issues in the case.)
In 2017, before their divorce, Clive Standish, 72, transferred
investments worth £77.8 million to his wife, Anna, as part of a
tax planning scheme. These assets had originally been Clive’s
non-matrimonial property. The couple married in 2005 – this was
the second marriage for both – and have two children together.
However, the marriage broke down in 2020. In 2022, a high court
judge split the family’s total wealth of £132 million by awarding
Clive £87 million and Anna £45 million. The former challenged
this decision at the court of appeal, saying that most of the
money, including the transferred assets, was earned before they
began living together.
As noted here before the court’s ruling this week, the case drew
attention to one of the most contentious issues in financial
remedy cases in England and Wales – to what extent can property
be matrimonialised?
The case may influence how family law, and wealth management
professionals, advise clients in future, specifically in nuptial
agreements and the protection of pre-marital wealth.
We carry a range of reactions from lawyers:
Vandana Chitroda, partner in the family law team,
Broadfield
The court highlighted a "conceptual distinction" between
non-matrimonial and matrimonial property. The time has now come
to recognise that in divorce cases the sharing principle applies
only to matrimonial property, unless, of course, consideration
needs to be given to “needs” and “compensation.”
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the
transferred asset had been treated as shared. As the transfer was
designed to save tax, the court did not find that the funds had
been treated as shared and therefore had not been
matrimonialised.
The conclusion was that the Court of Appeal’s decision that 25
per cent of the assets in 2017 were matrimonial and 75 per cent
were non-matrimonial is correct and, therefore, only the
matrimonial assets should be shared equally.
“This decision crystallises the principle that only matrimonial
assets should be available for sharing on divorce. It highlights
that non-matrimonial funds should be treated as such, even in
circumstances where they have been transferred to a spouse,
provided that the asset was not treated as shared
subsequently.
Prateek Swaika, partner at Boies Schiller
Flexner
“The Supreme Court’s message is unequivocal: Source trumps title.
Origin beats ownership. For wealth creators and inheritors, this
is a decisive victory. Courts must now trace the genesis of
assets – not rubber-stamp legal transfers – when dividing
marital pots. Mere re-titling assets for tax or convenience? That
won’t convert pre-marital gold into marital property.
“Immediate takeaways for our UHNW litigation clients: Your
weapon: argue source, not structure. Isolate pre-marital wealth
with forensic asset-tracing. Your shield: prenups just became
non-negotiable. Document asset origins before vows – or pay
the price. Your red flag: tax-driven transfers without explicit
agreements? Standish just made them landmines.
Why this judgment changes everything: For our UHNW International
clients: England now favours wealth creators more than other
jurisdictions. Restructure now. For litigators: attack
matrimonialisation’ claims by forcing opponents to prove
commingling beyond title shifts. For advisors: Tax plans ignoring
matrimonial risk are malpractice. Integrate both – or face
Standish-scale blowback.
Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm,
Shakespeare Martineau
“Today’s landmark decision marks a significant narrowing of the
concept of “matrimonialisation.” Merely transferring assets into
joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them
into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented
intention to share an asset.
While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding,
this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial
agreements. Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions
made during a separation don’t always reflect long-term
intentions. A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set
expectations early and protect their respective interests with
transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional
cost of litigation.
Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a
non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be
recorded clearly. Without that, the default position may now lean
toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in
the legal landscape.
Chris Lloyd-Smith, partner in the matrimonial team at law
firm Anthony Collins
Without a doubt this marks a significant moment for the evolution
of matrimonial finance law, particularly when splitting assets.
The court’s decision on whether non-matrimonial assets can be
‘matrimonialised’ through intention or use will have a measurable
impact, particularly for high net worth divorces and the
interpretation of financial gifts between spouses.
With the judgment being in favour of Mr Standish, the court has
set a precedent of firmer boundaries between personal and shared
wealth. This may reassure those entering marriage with
substantial pre-existing assets, but it also raises questions
about fairness in situations where shared use or dependency is
later contested.
The most important takeaway is that transparent financial
planning in relationships is crucial. When it comes to managing
expectations and reducing legal uncertainty, pre- and
post-nuptial agreements, that are reviewed regularly, are
important tools to divide and protect assets with clarity. This
way, you protect yourself and set your own terms, instead of
relying on a court decision.
Jennifer Dickson, family law partner,
Withers
Mr Standish has been able to have his cake and eat it today and
wealthy spouses will breathe a sigh of relief at this Supreme
Court judgment, which has declined to accept Mrs Standish's
argument that the £77.8 million her husband transferred to her as
part of a tax planning exercise in 2017 should be equally divided
between them.
The judgment makes clear that non-matrimonial property should not
be subject to the sharing principle and matrimonial property
should ordinarily be shared 50/50, but that non-matrimonial
property can be 'matrimonialised' depending on the couple's
intention and treatment of that wealth during the marriage. Had
the tax planning exercise been designed to benefit Mrs Standish,
rather than their children, it may well have been a different
story.
Caroline Holley, partner at Farrer & Co
Standish may be a case involving the super-wealthy, but today’s
judgment is relevant to everyone.
Whilst in most divorces, the division of finances will be
determined by the needs of the spouses, in those cases where
there is more money than is required to meet those needs, the
court’s approach is to share the matrimonial assets between the
spouses. However, it can be difficult to determine what is in the
“matrimonial pot” to be shared, which often leads to costly
disputes. In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court has made clear
that how the parties deal with an asset during a marriage is the
key question when considering whether an asset has been
matrimonialised. In essence, have they been treating the asset as
shared between them?
While each case will turn on its facts, pre-nuptial agreements
remain the best way to protect non-matrimonial assets on divorce.
Emily Brand, head of family [law] at Boodle
Hatfield
Today’s Supreme Court judgment in Standish v Standish is a
victory of fact over theory.
The question at the heart of this case was whether assets
transferred during the course of a marriage had become
"matrimonialised" and therefore capable of sharing on divorce.
Today’s ruling makes it abundantly clear that whilst non-marital
assets can indeed become “matrimonialised” during a marriage if
they are treated as being shared over time, this was not the case
here.
Mr Standish’s transfer of £77 million to his wife during their
marriage ostensibly as a gift but explicitly for inheritance tax
planning was therefore not deemed to have been "matrimonialised"
and a 50/50 division of these assets on divorce did not apply.
Divorcing couples should appreciate that the provenance of their
wealth is material and not assume that the transfer of title from
one to the other will automatically "matrimonialise" that asset
making it subject to "sharing." Married couples need to be clear
about their intentions when transferring assets between
themselves and should record these intentions by way of a nuptial
agreement.”
Will MacFarlane, partner in the family and divorce
team at Kinglsey Napley
This decision brings greater clarity to financially stronger
parties seeking to undertake IHT planning and helps reduce the
risk of them being exposed if their marriages break down.
Until now, there has always been a conflict between IHT planning
and wealth protection. This is a green light for those seeking to
transfer assets between spouses for IHT planning as it cannot now
be assumed that those assets will be matrimonialised.
A stand-out point from today’s judgment is that if transfers
taking place within an IHT planning exercise are clearly for the
benefit of the next generation or someone other than the
recipient of the assets, matrimonialisation is unlikely to have
occurred. Another major lesson from this case for family lawyers
and wealthy individuals is that if Mr and Mrs Standish had
entered into a postnuptial agreement this litigation could have
been avoided. Had they done so the purpose of the transfer of
assets to Mrs Standish would have been clearly set out and agreed
so respective interests could have been protected.
The Standish decision also endorses the compensation principle
for spouses who have given up work in support of the financially
stronger party in the marriage.
Philippa Dolan, Family Partner at Law Firm, Collyer
Bristow
It feels to me as if this is the “right” decision. It doesn’t
change the direction of travel and, perhaps most important from a
tax planning perspective, it doesn’t put wealthy couples at risk
when they seek to avoid tax by transferring assets between them.
There are interesting arguments that could be made about the
philosophical integrity of transferring assets to avoid tax and
then reclaiming them when your marriage fails, but the Supreme
Court clearly didn’t want to engage in that debate.
The sharing principle was upheld, pre-marital assets continue to
be ring fenced, and matrimonialisation of non-marital assets
remains a complication for family lawyers to wrestle with when
giving advice.
Alex Davies, head of family at law firm Wedlake
Bell
We are pleased to see the Supreme Court bring long-overdue
clarity to an area of law that has remained uncertain for years.
This judgment firmly establishes that non-matrimonial property -
typically acquired before the marriage - should not be subject to
the equal sharing principle. It also confirms that tax planning
alone does not convert non-matrimonial assets into matrimonial
ones.
Importantly, the court has drawn a principled distinction between
assets built within the marriage and those brought into it, while
recognising that over time, non-matrimonial property may become
matrimonial if it is shared or integrated into the marital
partnership. This is a significant and reassuring development for
private clients, offering a clearer framework for asset
protection and helping to inform future tax planning strategies
with greater confidence.
Camilla Wallace, senior partner, Wedlake
Bell
“This decision will be instrumental in helping private clients
assess and structure their tax planning strategies with greater
certainty. It reinforces the principle that fairness in divorce
must reflect both the origin of wealth and the nature of the
marital partnership.