As of 30 April 2025, all eyes in the family law world were on the UK Supreme Court, where the high-profile case of Standish v Standish was heard. This landmark case promises to bring much-needed clarity to one of the most complex and often litigated questions in financial remedy proceedings: when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonialised?
The case involves Clive Standish, a retired UBS banker, and his ex-wife Anna Standish. At the centre of their dispute is a £77 million transfer Clive made to Anna during their marriage, purportedly as part of an estate planning strategy intended to benefit their children. However, the transfer was never completed into a formal trust, and following the couple’s divorce proceedings, its classification has become the legal battleground.
The Legal Journey So Far
The High Court initially ruled that the £77m was a matrimonial asset, awarding Anna £45m. The judgment suggested that the transfer into Anna’s sole name during the marriage created a legitimate expectation of sharing.
But in a significant turn, the Court of Appeal reversed part of this decision in May 2024, reducing Anna’s award to £25m. It held that the source of the funds — Clive’s pre-marital wealth — was more relevant than the act of transferring them to Anna. The appellate court adopted a narrower interpretation of what constitutes matrimonial property, sending a clear message that the origin of wealth remains central unless clear evidence of sharing can be demonstrated.
Now, as the matter is tested before the UK Supreme Court, legal professionals are waiting to see whether the act of transferring an asset between spouses is sufficient to “matrimonialise” it, or whether the underlying source and intention continue to dominate.
What’s at Stake?
This case touches on the core of the sharing principle in UK divorce law. Traditionally, the courts distinguish between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, with the former generally subject to equal sharing, and the latter often ringfenced — unless it has been mingled with marital assets or used in a way that signifies joint intention.
As Tom Quinn, Partner at Birketts LLP, aptly put it, the real question is whether legal title trumps source. In Standish, the High Court focused on the fact that assets were placed in Anna’s sole name. The Court of Appeal disagreed, placing greater weight on the fact that the funds originated from Clive’s pre-marital estate and were transferred for tax purposes rather than to signify a gift or shared ownership.
Miranda Fisher of Charles Russell Speechlys notes that the Supreme Court’s ruling could cement the “narrow” approach taken by the Court of Appeal — potentially ushering in a more rigid regime favouring the original asset-holder, especially in high-net-worth cases.
Why It Matters Beyond the Billionaires
Though the figures involved are eye-watering, the legal principles at stake in Standish v Standish extend far beyond the super-rich. Couples of all wealth levels routinely engage in estate planning, asset transfers, and mingling of wealth. Whether a second home gifted by parents, or savings from before the marriage placed into a joint account, the classification of such assets often becomes hotly contested in divorces.
Adele Pledger of Withers Worldwide highlights the potential real-world consequences: if the Supreme Court holds that legal title doesn’t convert a non-marital asset into a marital one, spouses may become far more cautious — both emotionally and financially — about transferring or co-owning wealth. On the other hand, if the Court finds that use or transfer during marriage signals a sharing intent, it could significantly expand the scope of assets open to division.
Broader Questions the Court May Address
The Supreme Court has an opportunity — and perhaps an obligation — to provide clearer guidance on the various ways assets might become matrimonialised, such as:
A ruling that goes beyond just the Standish facts could bring greater predictability and fairness to a system that currently operates in a grey zone — particularly for spouses who didn’t earn or bring significant assets into the marriage, but who did share in the life built around them.
What Comes Next?
With the Supreme Court hearing concluded, no judgment is likely until later in 2025. However, the legal community is bracing for what could be a defining decision on how the courts treat wealth that flows between spouses during a marriage.
Whether it reaffirms the sanctity of the source or reshapes how courts view intra-spousal transfers, the judgment in Standish v Standish is set to recalibrate the balance between fairness and autonomy in financial remedy claims.
For now, the best advice for separating couples — particularly those with complex wealth or family business interests — remains: get a prenup, and get legal advice early.