header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Shrinking the pot?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
10 October 2025 / Katherine Harding , Charlotte Finley
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Tax , Divorce
printer mail-detail
231933
In Standish v Standish, the Supreme Court narrowed what counts as matrimonial property: Katherine Harding & Charlotte Finley explore what this might mean for Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 claims
  • The distinction made in Standish v Standish between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property may affect Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims, particularly the ‘divorce cross-check’ test, by limiting what assets are considered shareable.
  • Courts may place greater weight on the origin and treatment of assets (eg family businesses, inherited wealth, or tax-planned structures), potentially reducing awards unless strong needs-based claims are established.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the recent Supreme Court case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 and the impact it will have on financial remedy (divorce) proceedings. In this article we take a slightly different approach and examine the wider implications of the decision, specifically in relation to claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). These claims

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

Read All
Sponsored by
BCL Solicitors—Robert Lawrie

BCL Solicitors—Robert Lawrie

Commercial disputes team lead promoted to partner

Mourant—Tom Fothergill

Mourant—Tom Fothergill

Jersey finance and corporate practice welcomes new partner

Shakespeare Martineau—Solicitor apprentices

Shakespeare Martineau—Solicitor apprentices

Firm launches solicitor apprenticeship programme with inaugural cohort

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: AI, liberty & the digital cage
Government plans for offender ‘restriction zones’ risk creating ‘digital cages’ that blur punishment with surveillance, warns Henrietta Ronson, partner at Corker Binning, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform in limbo
Louise Uphill, senior associate at Moore Barlow LLP, dissects the faltering rollout of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Enforcement reform gets real
Judgments are ‘worthless without enforcement’, says HHJ Karen Walden-Smith, senior circuit judge and chair of the Civil Justice Council’s enforcement working group. In this week's NLJ, she breaks down the CJC’s April 2025 report, which identified systemic flaws and proposed 39 reforms, from modernising procedures to protecting vulnerable debtors
NLJ this week: Standish reshapes family & inheritance claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Katherine Harding and Charlotte Finley of Penningtons Manches Cooper examine Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court ruling that narrowed what counts as matrimonial property, and its potential impact upon claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
NLJ this week: Clearing Christine Keeler’s name
In this week's NLJ, Dr Jon Robins, editor of The Justice Gap and lecturer at Brighton University, reports on a campaign to posthumously exonerate Christine Keeler. 60 years after her perjury conviction, Keeler’s son Seymour Platt has petitioned the king to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy, arguing she was a victim of violence and moral hypocrisy, not deceit. Supported by Felicity Gerry KC, the dossier brands the conviction 'the ultimate in slut-shaming'
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll