header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Shrinking the pot?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
10 October 2025 / Katherine Harding , Charlotte Finley
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Tax , Divorce
printer mail-detail
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
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll