On 2nd July 2025, the Supreme Court published its highly anticipated judgment in the case of Standish v Standish. The appeal was brought by Mrs Standish against a Court of Appeal ruling which reduced her financial award on divorce from £45m to £25m – the largest ever reduction to a divorce award.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and provided clarity on the issue of "matrimonialisation," the process whereby a non-matrimonial asset (which is not typically available for sharing between spouses) becomes matrimonial (and therefore available for sharing on divorce) by virtue of its treatment during the marriage.
Standish v Standish is now the leading case on this topic.
Background
The case concerned a 15 year marriage which had produced two children. The husband was very wealthy. At the outset of the marriage his assets were in the region of £57m, and by separation had increased to £132m. During the marriage, he transferred c. £80m into the wife's sole name as part of a tax planning scheme. The intention at the time was for the wife to transfer the sum into an offshore trust for the benefit of the children, but that never happened.
At first instance, the wife received a settlement of £45m and the husband received £87m. The wife appealed and the husband cross-appealed. Both parties sought a greater share of the assets than had been awarded to them.
The wife argued that the £80m transferred into her sole name had become her separate property. She suggested that the Court should look at the title (i.e. who was the legal owner) of the asset, rather than its source. She also argued that if the Court did not agree with this view then the £80m should be considered to be matrimonial property to which the sharing principle applied (in other words, if she was not awarded all of the money then she should at least have half of it).
The husband argued that the £80m in question was his non-matrimonial property, and that it is the source of the wealth that is relevant, rather than the title. He also argued that if the Court did find the property to be matrimonial, he should receive more than half of it as a result of his unmatched contributions to the family's wealth (in other words, the fact that the money was his prior to the marriage should result in an unequal division of the money in his favour).
The Court of appeal preferred the husband's arguments and reduced the wife's award to £25m. They agreed with the husband that it was the source of the asset that was relevant, and not its title. The Court of Appeal also suggested that the concept of matrimonialisation should be "applied narrowly". The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal's decision was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgment confirmed that:
- In general terms, the distinction between matrimonial property and non-matrimonial property turns on the source of the assets.
- Non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle (though it can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation).
- The concept of matrimonialisation describes the process by which non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property and may occur by the following non-exhaustive things (referencing K v L [2011] EWCA):
- The passing of time (which erodes the significance of the initial contribution)
- The mixing of non-matrimonial property with matrimonial property
- The investing of non-matrimonial property in a matrimonial home, which is treated as a central item of matrimonial property
- Matrimonialisation as a concept should not be applied narrowly. Rather, it is important to consider how the parties have dealt with the asset.
- Transferring an asset for tax planning reasons does not establish that the intention is to treat the asset being transferred as a shared asset.
So what next?
The law is now clearer and more certain. It is the source, rather than the title, of the asset which is important. However, whether an asset has been matrimonialised is likely to remain a contentious point in divorce proceedings.
Moving forward, if parties wish to transfer assets to one another during the course of marriage, it will be important for them to clearly record their intentions, especially if they want to argue in a divorce that the assets are shared. One of the best ways of doing this would be via a post-nuptial agreement. You can read more about nuptial agreements here.
Should you wish to discuss your circumstances with the author of this article Yasmine Roff or find out more, please get in touch.
Pictured: Yasmine Roff