The Supreme Court has delivered its much-anticipated decision in the long-running Standish v Standish divorce case. The decision provides clarity on how matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets will shape future divorce settlements, with profound implications for how courts approach financial settlements, particularly in high-value cases..
Background to the case
The case centred on Clive Standish, a highly successful former Chief Financial Officer at UBS, and his wife Anna. During their marriage, Mr Standish had accumulated substantial wealth, much of it predating their relationship. In 2017, as part of a sophisticated inheritance tax planning strategy, he transferred approximately £77 million of his pre-marital assets to his wife. The plan was that Mrs Standish would establish offshore discretionary trusts for their two children, thereby avoiding the substantial inheritance tax liability that would arise if Mr Standish died while deemed domiciled in the UK.
The anticipated trusts, however, were never established. When the couple separated in 2020, Mrs Standish continued to hold the assets—by then worth approximately £80 million—in her sole name. This created a complex legal question: had the transfer transformed Mr Standish’s non-matrimonial wealth into matrimonial property subject to equal sharing?
In the first instance, the court awarded Anna Standish £45 million, representing approximately one-third of the total assets. The judge found that the 2017 transfer had “matrimonialised” the husband’s pre-marital wealth, making it subject to the sharing principle, albeit with a departure from equality to reflect the assets’ original source.
Both parties appealed, with the Court of Appeal reversing the decision, saying that the mere transfer of legal title could not be determinative of an asset’s matrimonial character. Instead, the court must look to the source of the wealth and the parties’ treatment of it. The Court of Appeal concluded that 75% of the transferred assets remained non-matrimonial property, reducing Mrs Standish’s award to approximately £25 million and remitting the case for a needs assessment.
The Supreme Court decided that the transfer of the funds did not matrimonialise the assets and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. It recognised that those assets were generated prior to their marriage and had not been intended to be joint assets.
50:50 split
Broadly, divorce settlements look to split marital assets equally between both partners, especially in long marriages with children. Non-marital assets would only be called into play if marital assets fail to meet the needs of the family.
The courts will, however, retain considerable discretion in determining financial settlements, and every divorce case will be determined by its own facts.
It should also be remembered that in cases where large amounts of money are not involved, non-matrimonial assets will likely come into play to meet the needs of both parties and children.
The court’s analysis of “matrimonialisation”—the process by which non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial—provides crucial practical guidance. The transformation occurs when parties treat assets as shared between them over time, when non-matrimonial property becomes inextricably mixed with matrimonial assets, or when assets become so integrated into family life that joint treatment becomes appropriate. Crucially, this requires evidence of the parties’ actual conduct and intentions, not merely formal legal arrangements.
Perhaps most importantly for tax and estate planning, the Supreme Court has established that transfers made purely for fiscal purposes do not automatically create matrimonialisation. The court recognised that such arrangements are commonplace between spouses and that treating every tax-motivated transfer as evidence of sharing would undermine legitimate estate planning. In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrated that the transfer was intended to benefit the children through inheritance tax mitigation, not to create a shared marital asset.
Pre- and post-nuptial agreements
Perhaps the big surprise in this case is the lack of any pre- or post-nuptial agreement. If one had been in place, it would have undoubtedly helped resolve matters faster and without considerable cost.
Whilst not legally binding, those who bring considerable wealth to any marriage are advised to consider a pre-nuptial agreement that sets out how assets will be divided should a marriage or civil partnership fail. They offer a large degree of certainty as to how the courts will determine the division of assets and can be used to ringfence assets brought to a marriage.
Where a pre-nup doesn’t exist, a post-nuptial agreement provides helpful clarification and direction on the transfer of assets or money should a relationship fail.
Like pre-nuptial agreements, post-nups are not legally binding in England and Wales but will be upheld so long as certain criteria are met should parties later separate. To be upheld, the outcome of a prenup must not be manifestly unfair and there must be no coercion or duress to enter into the agreement.
In this instance, a postnup may have made it clear whether the transfer of assets was to be an outright gift or a conditional gift of arrangement. It would have saved both parties considerable time and money and provided them with certainty.
For our clients, the message is clear: while the law now provides greater certainty about asset protection, this certainty is best secured through careful planning and professional advice at the outset of relationships, not through post-separation litigation. The Standish decision provides the framework for such planning—it is now for individuals to use it wisely.
*This article provides general commentary on the Standish v Standish decision and should not be relied upon as legal advice. The application of these principles to individual circumstances requires careful analysis of specific facts and law. For advice tailored to your situation, please contact our family law specialists.
The above is accurate as at 3 July 2025 and may be subject to change.
Contact our Family Team
The Family team at Bishop & Sewell has a wealth of experience in dealing with family law, finances on divorce, and pre and post-nuptial agreements. Please email family@bishopandsewell.co.uk or contact 020 7631 4141 and ask to speak to our Family Law team.
