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?

Issue: 8134 / Categories: Features , Family , Property , Tax , Divorce

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS

Read All

Costs judge within limits but litigants warned

A deputy costs judge correctly exercised his discretion to allow late service rather than strike out the point of dispute, the Court of Appeal has held

Prince Harry's claim falls short

Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and five others have lost their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, in Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB)

Making the case for open justice data

Public confidence in the justice system is being undermined by a lack of accessible, useable data, magistrates have warned

First immigration sentencing guidelines set out

The Sentencing Council has launched draft guidelines for facilitation and endangering another person during a sea crossing to the UK

Legal advice on workplace non-disclosure agreements

Government proposals to make independent written legal advice a prerequisite for workplace non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may prove unworkable, according to a senior employment lawyer

Error message

Shrinking the pot?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Sidley—Carl Hotton