Sharing principle clarified in divorce

In Anna Catherine Standish v Clive Thomas Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, the husband had amassed most of his £132m fortune in banking before the couple married, in 2005. The husband retired in 2007, the wife was a homemaker and the couple have two children together.

All the wealth, apart from two joint bank accounts and the £20m matrimonial home, was held solely in the husband’s name until 2017 when, for tax reasons, the husband transferred £77m to the wife with the expectation this would be placed in a trust for the children. However, the wife commenced divorce proceedings in 2020, still in possession of the £77m (now £80m).

The wife argued that ownership or title should be the determinative factor, where assets created prior to the marriage were held in her name at the time of divorce. The husband contended the source of the assets was the critical factor and they should be treated as non-matrimonial property due to their provenance long before the marriage.

In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the wife’s appeal and granted the husband’s appeal. The wife’s sharing entitlement was reduced on the husband’s cross appeal by 45% of that awarded at first instance.

The court has remitted the case to the High Court for a ‘needs’ assessment should the parties be unable to reach agreement.

Lucy Stewart-Gould, partner at Stewarts, representing Mr Standish, said the judgment ‘properly reflects the fact that the substantial wealth in this case was generated almost entirely by his work prior to the marriage. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that endeavour and source of wealth are central considerations in such cases. Title is no guide to a fair outcome and, indeed, risks being discriminatory—as has long been recognised in this jurisdiction.’

Sam Longworth, partner at Stewarts, said: ‘The Court of Appeal’s judgment is thorough and provides clarity in respect of aspects which have created significant amounts of dispute and litigation between divorcing couples in recent years.’