In Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the husband transferred £77.8m (now worth £80m) to his wife eight years ago on the understanding they be held in trust in Jersey for tax planning reasons. However, the wife didn’t set up the trust and later removed the husband from her will and sought a divorce.
At trial, the judge allocated the £80m 60/40 in favour of the husband. The Court of Appeal decided the husband should have 75% and the wife 25%. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal.
Giving the main judgment, Lords Reed and Burrows clarified that non-matrimonial property is typically acquired before the marriage or through inheritance or gifts, whereas matrimonial property ‘comprises the fruits of the marriage, reflects the marriage partnership or is the product of the parties’ common endeavour’. They held the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial assets and should be shared on an equal basis.
However, non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property through matrimonialisation. Lords Reed and Burrows said this depends on how the parties deal with and treat the assets—‘matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared’. Finally, a transfer of assets for tax reasons tends to show the asset is not shared.
Yael Selig, partner at Osbornes Law, predicted ‘a surge in enquiries about prenuptial and postnuptial agreements’, highlighting the husband won ‘only after a lengthy and costly legal battle which has taken five years’.
‘While [the] judgment may offer some reassurance to wealthy individuals who fear being forced to carve up their assets if the marriage ends, a pre- or post-nup remains the best possible way to protect their wealth.’
Sarah Norman-Scott, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said the decision ‘shows a clear steer towards wealth preservation.
‘It will now be harder to demonstrate that an asset has become matrimonial in nature, even if, as in this case, it has been transferred into the other spouse’s name. It no longer rings true that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”.’
Welcoming 'the clarity provided by this judgment', Tom Quinn, partner in the family team at Birketts, said: 'The difficulty for Mrs Standish was inevitably the sheer scale of assets involved in this case.' He added that he couldn't help but wonder 'if the court might have taken a more sympathetic view if the financial stakes had been smaller.'
