What does the family law case of Standish v Standish mean for the treatment of property in a marriage?

On the 2 July 2025 the UK Supreme Court handed down the long-awaited judgment in the case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC.  The case has clarified the uncertainty over how courts distinguish between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, particularly, but by no means exclusively, in high-net-worth cases. The term “property” in this context covers all capital assets not just bricks and mortar. Matrimonial property (also known as marital property) is the term used for all assets acquired by either spouse during the marriage until the date of separation. Assets owned before marriage or inheritance are not usually considered matrimonial property unless those assets were intermingled with matrimonial property.  An example of that would be if an inheritance was used to purchase a jointly owned family home.

Background to the case

Clive and Anna Standish married in 2005.  Mr. Standish, a successful financier, had amassed substantial wealth prior to the marriage. In 2017, he transferred approximately £77.8 million to Mrs. Standish as part of a tax and estate planning strategy intended to benefit their children. However, the couple separated before the trust arrangement was finalised, and the funds remained in Mrs. Standish’s sole name.

In the High Court, the transferred funds were treated as matrimonial property and Mrs. Standish was awarded £45 million.  This was roughly 40% of the total £112 million matrimonial property. Dissatisfied, Mrs Standish appealed for a larger share, while Mr. Standish cross-appealed, arguing that the assets were non-matrimonial and therefore they should not be shared equally.

Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Decisions

The Court of Appeal sided with Mr. Standish, reducing Mrs. Standish’s award to £25 million— probably the largest reduction in a financial award in UK divorce history. The case then went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s decision and provided detailed clarification on the treatment of non-matrimonial assets.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• Non-matrimonial property including pre-marital wealth, inheritances, and gifts should not be subject to the sharing principle, which typically applies to assets generated through the couple’s joint efforts. The sharing principle means that assets accumulated during a marriage should be divided equally between the spouses unless there is a good reason to depart from this principle.

• The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property. Previously the Courts left it open whether non-matrimonial property could ever be shared. This judgement clarifies it cannot.

• “Matrimonialisation” is now a term now formally recognized. This refers to the process by which non-matrimonial assets may become matrimonial through the parties’ conduct, such as integrating the asset into family life or treating it as shared.  This did not happen here. The 2017 transfer was purely to save tax. There must be intentional shared treatment of the property over time.

• Non-matrimonial property can still be shared under the needs and compensation principles, depending on the circumstances. The needs principle focuses on ensuring that each spouse has sufficient resources to meet their basic financial needs, while the compensation principle addresses situations where one spouse has suffered a disadvantage because of sacrifices made during the marriage such as giving up work to look after children.

Key legal takeaways

Source of wealth matters: Who owns the property at the time of the marriage breakdown is not important. What matters is the source and how that asset was treated over time.

Matrimonialisation requires evidence: Courts will scrutinize how the parties treated the asset. Simply transferring funds during marriage, even if substantial, does not automatically convert them into matrimonial property. Transfers designed to save tax or benefit the children are not sufficient to trigger the sharing principle.

Clarity for future cases: This ruling provides much-needed guidance for legal practitioners and divorcing parties, especially in complex financial cases involving significant pre-marital wealth.

Conclusion

Standish v Standish is a watershed moment in family law, offering a more structured and principled approach to asset division. By reinforcing the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, the Supreme Court has provided a clearer framework for fairness and predictability in financial remedy proceedings.

Contact us

If you need any more advice and guidance on any of the above, do get in touch with Saika Alam. Saika is a well-respected family and divorce lawyer based in St James’s, London. Known for her personal and pragmatic approach, Saika represents her clients on all aspects of their family relationships from cohabitation and marriage to separation and divorce and everything in between, whether that relates to financial matters or children’s issues. You can contact Saika on [email protected] or 020 78510110.