Shrinking the pot?

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

Shrinking the pot?

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.

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Commercial property and child law teams expand with senior hires

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Set expands London and Singapore offering with senior international disputes hires

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth

Firm strengthens real estate and litigation teams with partner promotions

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Burnout behind the billable hour

Behind the profession’s polished exterior, lawyers are ‘internally drained rather than physically tired’, according to a stark assessment of burnout in legal practice

NLJ this week: Domestic abuse reforms still falling short

Five years after the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force, concerns remain that the family courts continue to minimise allegations of abuse in child contact disputes

NLJ this week: Uber’s legal shield faces scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic

Uber has built a formidable strategy for insulating itself from liability for drivers’ conduct, but the legal terrain differs sharply between the US and England and Wales

NLJ this week: Hereditary peers era finally comes to an end

The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 marks a constitutional watershed by severing the centuries-old link between hereditary titles and automatic membership of the upper chamber

NLJ this week: Is it finally time to scrap Part III?

The Civil Justice Council’s review of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 could mark the end of what one commentator calls an ‘outdated’ and overly technical regime governing solicitor-client fee disputes

Error message

Shrinking the pot?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

WSP Solicitors—David Ashcroft & Jessica O’Shea

Duxton Hill Chambers—Lucas Bastin KC & Joshua Hiew

Gilson Gray—Gregor Duthie & Stephen Forsyth