header-logo header-logo

01 August 2025 / Sean Hilton , Penny Marshall
Issue: 8127 / Categories: Opinion , Divorce , Family , Tax , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Standish v Standish: Lessons to learn

226806
Strategist, educator, collaborator… the Supreme Court’s decision illustrates the many lives of a high-net-worth adviser, write Sean Hilton & Penny Marshall

The Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 has brought much-needed clarity to how non-matrimonial assets are handled in financial remedy cases. For those advising high-net-worth clients, the judgment offers both reassurance and a timely reminder of how crucial education, behaviour, and proper documentation are in safeguarding assets.

The debate

Mr Standish entered the marriage with significant pre-acquired wealth. In 2017, following estate and tax planning advice, he transferred investments worth £77.8m to his wife, with the intention that they would be settled into trusts. The trusts were never created, and the wife retained legal ownership of the assets. On divorce, she argued that the transfer was a gift and should be treated as matrimonial property. Although the High Court agreed, awarding her £45m, the Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that 75% of the assets retained their non-matrimonial status, and therefore

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll