header-logo header-logo

08 August 2025 / Ellie Hampson-Jones
Issue: 8128 / Categories: Features , Divorce , Family
printer mail-detail

Family law brief: August 2025

227500
In the summer update, Ellie Hampson-Jones delivers a bumper Standish v Standish special
  • The Supreme Court has clarified that non-matrimonial property—including assets acquired before the marriage—should generally be excluded from the sharing principle in divorce settlements.
  • The judgment reinforced the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, stating that the source of the wealth, not the title or transfer process, determines its classification.
  • The ruling provides a clearer framework for family law and wealth management practitioners, particularly regarding how non-matrimonial assets may become matrimonial through shared treatment over time.

On 30 April and 1 May 2025, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom heard the appeal of Mrs Standish against the decision of the Court of Appeal to reduce her divorce award by 45%, from £45m to £25m, the largest ever amount by percentage and value. On 2 July 2025, just two months after the hearing, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal ([2025] UKSC 26).

This is the first case since White v White [2001] 1

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll