On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to implement the largest ever divorce settlement reduction, in the landmark case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26.
Average couples pondering the relevance of a settlement worth millions to their own divorce proceedings are warned; this ruling will impact a large number of future settlements.
The landmark case clarifies the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets in the Family Courts of England and Wales. Non-matrimonial assets earned before marriage, are now less likely to be shared, given the new legal test on ‘matrimonialisation’ of assets.
The new test will assess the intention of the individual sharing non-matrimonial property and a couple’s treatment of that property over time. Crucially, the money an individual ‘brings with them’ to the marriage, could now be viewed as belonging to them, should that marriage end and assets be divided.
Facts of the case
In 2005, Anna and Clive Standish married. The parties went on to have two children and separated in 2020. After a successful career as a city banker, Mr Standish accrued significant pre-marital wealth. The couple’s wealth totalled circa. £132m.
The case focused particularly on a transfer of assets from Mr Standish to Mrs Standish in 2017. That is, a transfer of pre-marital investments from Mr Standish to Mrs Standish as part of a tax planning scheme, to take advantage of her foreign (Australian) domicile status (‘2017 Assets’). The investments were intended to be settled into a Trust for the benefit of their children and to mitigate inheritance tax. Instead, Mrs Standish retained the investments in her sole name and later commenced divorce proceedings in April 2020.
In 2022, the couple divorced. At the first instance hearing in May 2022, the 2017 Assets were worth approximately £80m. The High Court awarded Mrs Standish a £45m settlement (circa. 40%) of the couple’s matrimonial assets worth £112m, which included the value of the 2017 Assets.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
Both parties appealed, arguing that the 2017 Assets were their separate property. At the Court of Appeal in November 2023, Mr Standish argued that most of the funds (including the 2017 Assets), were earned before they lived together. He maintained that a lower award would represent a fairer outcome, while sufficiently meeting the needs of Mrs Standish. Conversely, Mrs Standish argued that the 2017 Assets were ‘matrimonialised’ and were therefore available to be shared between them.
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Standish and found that the majority of the 2017 Assets were pre-marital and should not be shared equally. Accordingly, it reduced the settlement awarded to Mrs Standish from £45m to £25m.
The Supreme Court’s decision
Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously agreed with the Court of Appeal and held that the majority of the assets were ‘pre-matrimonial’. In its Judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the application of what is considered to be matrimonial property and sharing. Whether an asset becomes ‘matrimonialised’ depends on ‘how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether this shows that, over time, they have been treating the asset as shared between them. That is, matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared.’ [52]
The Supreme Court’s decision has highlighted that the source of an asset is the key factor in determining its classification and that title is not decisive. It noted that the longer the marriage and the greater the mingling of assets, the more likely it is that non-matrimonial property will be treated as matrimonial.
While the Supreme Court emphasised that the default position for matrimonial property is equal sharing, its decision in Standish confirms that the sharing principle does not necessarily apply to non-matrimonial property.
Co-authored by the Bivonas Family & Divorce Team – Jay Patel, Raphaela Kohs & Emma Goldberg