As of yesterday, 30th April 2025, the UK Supreme Court is hearing the high-profile divorce case of Standish v Standish. The hearing is scheduled to continue into 1st May 2025. No updates or judgments have been released yet, as the proceedings are still ongoing.
A judgment is anticipated later this year. The decision could set a significant precedent in UK family law, particularly concerning the treatment of pre-marital wealth and intra-spousal transfers during divorce settlements
The anticipated hearing in Standish vs. Standish will examine whether a £77m transfer from husband to wife during the marriage should be classified as a matrimonial asset – or ringfenced as part of long-term estate planning.
The case involves Clive Standish, a retired UBS banker, and his former spouse, Anna Standish. The couple, who married in 2005 and initiated divorce proceedings in 2020, are disputing the classification of a £77m transfer from Clive to Anna during their marriage. This transfer, intended as part of an estate planning strategy for their children, was never finalised into a trust, leading to significant legal debates.
The High Court initially deemed the transferred assets as matrimonial property, awarding Anna £45m. However, the Court of Appeal reduced this award to £25m in May 2024, emphasising the importance of the source of wealth – primarily Clive’s pre-marital asset. Anna has now been granted permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Tom Quinn, Partner in the Family Team at Birketts LLP, said:
“The pivotal case of Standish v Standish, which sought to clarify (but, frankly, probably didn’t) how courts should treat non-matrimonial wealth in divorce proceedings, is now heading to the Supreme Court for challenge.
The Court of Appeal decision in Standish marked a significant development in the treatment of “matrimonialised” assets, being those assets which originate from non-matrimonial sources but have been used or shared during the marriage (commonly referred to as “mingled” with matrimonial assets).
The judgment gave practitioners detailed guidance on when such assets may, or may not, be subject to the sharing principle (something of a “Hoy Grail” for claimant spouses): the short point being, does legal title trump all? So, in the case of Standish, did the fact that Mr Standish transferred non-matrimonial assets into (then) Mrs Standish’s sole name render those assets matrimonial and susceptible to sharing or was their source all-important leaving them non-matrimonial? The High Court favoured the former analysis; the Court of Appeal favoured the latter. Unusually for a high-net-worth case, this has implications for many cases in the family court regardless of level of wealth.
The forthcoming Supreme Court challenge will test the boundaries of this evolving area of law, and its outcome could have major implications for asset protection, nuptial agreements, and the treatment of inherited or pre-acquired wealth on divorce.
This case is being closely watched by family lawyers and individuals alike, as it may shape the future landscape of financial settlements and reinforce – or recalibrate – the delicate balance between fairness and autonomy in financial remedy claims.”
Miranda Fisher, Partner in the family law team at Charles Russell Speechlys, said:
“This case is likely to be a key Supreme Court decision in family law. We have seen, in line with societal change, the growing importance and regularity of nuptial agreements and more recent family court decisions, that pre marital or non matrimonial wealth will be of the utmost importance in a big money case where the court is looking at sharing arguments. The Court of Appeal has said a narrow approach needs to be taken when considering whether assets, originally in one party’s name become ‘matrimonialised’, and it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court agrees with this and upholds the £20m reduction in award – heralding a victory and making a clear statement for the wealthier spouse.
Notwithstanding the quantum of the reduction in award, given the transfer was made in 2017, only some three years before the divorce was initiated and following tax planning advice, Mrs Standish may have a more difficult argument to run to convince the court otherwise although they may review the quantum of her award.”
Nick Gova, partner and head of family at London law firm Spector Constant & Williams commented:
“This case highlights the long-term legal and financial implications of gifting or transferring substantial assets between spouses during a marriage. While such transfers may be driven by tax or estate planning objectives, they can later become central to disputes in divorce proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision could clarify whether a gift made within marriage — even for the benefit of children — should be treated as a marital contribution or as a separate arrangement. The outcome may have significant implications for couples who structure their finances in this way, particularly where large sums or trusts are involved.”
Adele Pledger, partner at Withers Worldwide, said that if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal decision, and concludes that change of legal title of an asset does not in itself matrimonialise it, that will mean couples may decide to structure ownership of assets in a marriage in a tax efficient way whilst still being able to reclaim such assets as one’s own on divorce. She added:
“If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal, and places less weight on the source of assets, this will cause concern to financially stronger parties and will make it even more important and advisable for them to ensure that a pre-nup is in place before getting married. It may also make them less willing to transfer assets to a spouse during marriage, particularly where it is solely for tax reasons.
The question the Supreme Court is being asked to consider is wide enough for it to also consider other potential ways non-marital assets may be argued to be matrimonialised, for example where non-marital assets have been mingled with marital assets (e.g. earnings made during the marriage have been paid into the same account as pre-marital or inherited assets), or where non-marital assets have been used by the couple during the marriage (for example, a holiday home owned prior to the marriage or gifted from one of the spouse’s parents has been used for family holidays during the marriage). The more guidance the Supreme Court can provide, the more clarity family lawyers will be able to provide when advising clients getting divorced.”
