In family law, certain court decisions can shape how future cases are interpreted.
According to B P Collins’ family team, the recent Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 provides vital clarification on how non-matrimonial property is treated during financial settlements.
Significance of Standish v Standish in Financial Proceedings
In 2017, Clive Standish transferred approximately £77.8 million in investments to his then wife, Ann Standish. The stated purpose of the transfer was tax planning- to avoid UK inheritance tax by placing assets into the wife’s non-domiciled name, with the intention that the funds would later be placed into trusts for their children.
A central legal question arose- did this transfer convert the assets into matrimonial property or did they remain non-matrimonial?
The High Court’s decision
The High Court ruled that the transferred assets had been ‘matrimonialised’, that is they had turned into property of the marriage through the transfer to the wife. As a result, the court applied the sharing principle, awarding the wife £45 million.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal reversed the above position. It held that the transfer alone did not automatically make the assets matrimonial.
Instead, the following was held:
- 75% of the transferred assets remained non-matrimonial, therefore excluded from equal sharing.
- 25% of the transferred assets, which had been used for family purposes, were matrimonial.
The wife’s award was therefore reduced to around £25 million.
The Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.
It confirmed that the 2017 transfer was part of legitimate tax planning, so not intended to form a shared family resource.
Therefore, 75% of the assets remained non-matrimonial and not subject to the sharing principal.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the following key principles:
1. Legal title is not decisive
Legal title of an asset alone is not determinative as to whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
2. The sharing principle
The equal division of assets (sharing principle) only applies to matrimonial property. Non-matrimonial assets fall outside this presumption, although subject to the needs and fairness principles.
3. Matrimonialisation is fact-specific
Transferring or jointly holding an asset does not automatically mean it should be part of the matrimonial pot.
4. Treatment of assets
How spouses use and treat an asset during the marriage determines whether those assets have been matrimonalised.
What does this mean for you?
If you’re going through separation or divorce, Standish v Standish can influence how a court views your assets, especially if you’ve made significant non-financial contributions to the relationship.
We understand that every family case is different. Our experienced family law team can:
- Review and classify your assets to determine what may be considered matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
- Draft and negotiate pre and post nuptial agreements to record your intentions and help preserve certain assets.
- Assist you in financial remedy proceedings to ensure a fair outcome.
If you’re unsure how a decision like Standish v Standish may affect your situation, please email B P Collins’ family team at enquiries@bpcollins.co.uk or call 01753 889995 for further help and advice.
