Standish v Standish: The real world impact on financial remedy matters

The recent UK Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v. Standish [2025] UKSC 26 has significantly impacted on matrimonial finance law, and in particular the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets.

This landmark case involved the long marriage of Clive and Anna Standish, each of whom had children from previous relationships as well as  two children together.  Clive Standish, who had amassed considerable wealth  prior to marrying  Anna, transferred £78 million of his pre-marital assets into Anna’s name in 2017.  Both parties agreed that this was  done solely for tax planning purposes with the intention being that these assets would then be transferred by Anna into discretionary trusts for their children’s benefit. She never took this step. By the time the parties’ financial dispute came before the High Court in 2022, the assets had increased to £80 million and remained in Anna Standish’s name.

At first instance, Mr Justice Moor determined that the disputed £80 million in assets, despite originally being comprised mostly of Clive’s non-matrimonial assets, had been “matrimonialised” due to their transfer into Anna’s name during the marriage. This decision applied the sharing principle, entitling Anna to a presumptive 50% share of the disputed assets. However, in an acknowledgement of  Clive’s greater contribution, the court ordered a 60:40 division in Clive’s favour, resulting in Anna receiving assets of £45 million and Clive £87.6 million. Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal sided with Clive Standish, and in doing so emphasised the importance of the source of the assets over their title.  Lord Justice Moylan ruled that the disputed assets retained their, mostly, non-matrimonial character, despite their transfer to Anna and that 75% of the £80 million should revert to Clive. Anna’s overall award was reduced to £25 million.  Anna appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Anna Standish’s appeal, establishing five key principles for financial remedies:

1. There is a clear distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, with matrimonial assets being reflective of the fruits of marriage itself.
2. Non-matrimonial assets are not subject to the sharing principle unless needed to meet the parties’ needs or compensate for relationship-generated disadvantages.
3. Once an asset is recognised as matrimonial, it should be shared equally unless justified otherwise.
4. Matrimonialisation of an asset depends on the parties’ intentions and the passage of time, requiring factual examination.
5. Tax planning between the parties does not lead to matrimonialisation unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.

The Standish judgment, and the precedent it set, is already having broad implications in financial remedy matters, particularly in cases involving disputes about matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, such as inheritance or pre-acquired properties. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the source and treatment of assets over time, rather than legal title, highlights the importance of accurate asset characterisation from the outset.

We are already seeing many cases where the Standish principles are being applied and becoming decisive, even in limited-asset matters.  “Matrimonialisation” is no longer a vague concept but is now fact-specific and set down into law by the Supreme Court, which helps legal practitioners  offer more pragmatic advice to clients in this area.

For example, the judgment is clear that transfers for tax planning purposes alone will not suffice for matrimonialisation without additional considerations.   The Supreme Court acknowledged that tax planning between spouses is commonplace, but that it does not, in itself, lead to matrimonialisation.  Post-Standish, married couples can continue to make whatever tax and estate planning decisions they consider suitable for themselves, but good record-keeping will be essential.

The use of pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements is now particularly relevant going forward, as these clarify the parties’ intentions regarding non-matrimonial assets. What can be a better way to record the parties’ intentions than a well-reasoned pre or post-nuptial agreement, entered into with the benefit of legal advice?  Such agreements can help avoid factual disputes and provide clarity for the court and the parties themselves. Had Clive and Anna Standish executed a post-nuptial agreement at the time of the £78 million transfer, their entire litigation might have been avoided.

In lower-asset cases, the parties’ needs will remain paramount notwithstanding the monumental nature of the Standish decision.  This will potentially diminish the practical importance of the matrimonial versus non-matrimonial argument in limited-asset matters, where there are not enough assets to go around. Even non-matrimonial assets may be invaded to meet the needs of the parties and a balancing act must always be undertaken by the courts and by legal practitioners offering advice to our clients.  Of course, Clive and Anna’s matter has now been referred back to the High Court to assess whether Anna’s reasonable needs can be met with the £25 million she has been awarded.  Watch this space.

Julie Cohen, Principal Associate Solicitor, and Liz Orman, Senior Associate Solicitor in the Family Law Team at SA Law