header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 October 2025 / Katherine Harding , Charlotte Finley
Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Tax , Divorce
printer mail-detail

Shrinking the pot?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll