Standish v Standish: What Counts as Matrimonial Property?

Andrew Watson

Supreme Court upholds Court of Appeal decision

In a landmark ruling handed down on 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court upheld an earlier Court of Appeal decision that not all pre‑marital or non‑matrimonial assets are subject to equal division on divorce. The judgment in Standish v Standish clarified when such assets can become matrimonial, and when they remain “off‑limits”. Below, we summarise both the earlier Court of Appeal decision and the Supreme Court’s final ruling, and explain what this means for complex financial settlements in divorce.

Standish v Standish: Background & Court decisions

The case involved the marriage of Clive and Anna Standish, who were married for 15 years before divorce proceedings began in 2020. The couple had two children together. They had both been married before and each had 3 children from their previous marriages.

Before his retirement in 2007, Mr. Standish had an extremely successful career in business, initially in the financial sector and later as a cattle and sheep-farming tycoon. He had amassed significant wealth before his marriage with Mrs Standish began. Mrs Standish did not bring any significant wealth to the marriage.

In 2017, Mr Standish transferred around £77 million to his wife as part of an estate planning strategy. This had grown in value to just over £80 million by the time of the divorce. The expectation was that Mrs Standish would place these assets into an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. In 2020, the wife commenced divorce proceedings and the trust was never executed.

The total marital assets at the time of the split were £132 million, the vast majority of which had grown from the fortune that Mr Standish brought into the marriage.

High Court awards wife £45 Million

The High Court judge who heard the case in 2022 decided that the assets transferred in 2017 had become ‘matrimonial property’ and therefore subject to a fair division between the parties.

The overall split of the total assets, which included a substantial 18 bedroom family home and a farming business and land in Australia, was 34% to the wife (£45 million) and 66% to the husband (£87 million). The judge did not conduct a “needs assessment” for Mrs Standish given the level of the award.

Mrs Standish appealed the decision on various grounds, primarily that the £80 million transferred into her name in 2017 was a gift by Mr Standish to reduce an inheritance tax liability, not intended to be returned. She argued that it should therefore be treated as her property and not a marital asset. Despite this money being legally hers, she said she was willing to share it equally when the couple divorced in 2020.

Mr Standish counter-appealed. He also argued that the 2017 assets should not be considered to be a marital asset. However, he argued that because the wealth was his long before the marriage, these assets should be ring-fenced for himself and not subject to the usual sharing exercise. Mrs Standish should instead receive an amount that met her reasonable financial needs.

Court of Appeal reduces wife’s award by £20million

The Court of Appeal rejected the Wife’s appeal and accepted the husband’s. It agreed that the £80 million was generated entirely by the husband prior to the marriage, and should not go into the pot for division.

In England and Wales, the sharing principle assumes that each party is entitled to an equal share of the “fruits of the marriage,” that is, the assets shared and the wealth built up by the couple together during the marriage. On this basis, only the portion of the assets that could be attributed to the marriage should be subject to the sharing principle. The rest belonged to Mr Standish.

In view of this, Lord Justice Moylan stated that “a fair application of the sharing principle would have resulted in the wife receiving approximately £25 million” — effectively giving £20 million back to Mr Standish.

It is a point of legal principle that if someone’s reasonable needs cannot be met from their sharing entitlement, the court can increase the award. This is to ensure that each party can maintain their lifestyle, as far as is possible, in similar circumstances to that enjoyed during the marriage.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, reinforcing that the sharing principle applies only to assets treated as matrimonial. Intent and actual shared use are key, not mere title.

What is matrimonialisation?

Standish v Standish has highlighted a modern concept – the ‘matrimonialisation’ of assets – the impact of which is to bring pre-marital assets within the ‘pot’ of assets for division between the parties. Assets typically treated as non-matrimonial include inheritances, property purchased before the marriage, family business assets and valuable possessions.

When considering what happens to savings and investments in divorce, the established starting point for determining a fair division is an equal split of matrimonial assets, referred to as the ‘sharing principle’. Therefore, the financial implications for the party owning what they consider to be non-matrimonial could be significant, as the recent case of Standish illustrates.

The court’s view was that the concept of matrimonialisation should be narrowly applied – it’s about “fairness.” Moylan LJ went on to provide a useful reformulation of the concept of matrimonialisation. In summary:

• The percentage of the parties’ non-marital assets is not significant enough to justify an unequal division
• The extent to which matrimonial and non-matrimonial property has been mixed – and how – means that, in fairness, it should be included within the sharing principle; and
• Where non-marital property was used in the purchase of the former matrimonial home – the former matrimonial home should typically be shared equally

Source of funds

Anna failed to convince any of the five Supreme Court justices that the £80m transferred was a shared asset and subject to the sharing principle. Anna’s share was therefore limited to £25m.

The court made clear a fundamental principle: the aim of a financial order on divorce is to achieve a fair outcome. It then set out five key principles providing vital guidance that clarifies what constitutes ‘matrimonialisation’ of assets:

1. There is a conceptual distinction between matrimonial property (i.e., the “fruits” of the marriage partnership or the product of the parties’ common endeavour)
   and non-matrimonial property (typically property brought into the marriage by one party, or acquired by a party externally, such as a gift or inheritance). This means legal title to the property is not determinative of whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
2. The court must now clearly recognise that the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property.
3. The starting point is that matrimonial property should be shared on an equal basis, subject to justified departures.
4. What starts as non-matrimonial property could become matrimonial property by way of the matrimonialisation process. Whether that transformation has occurred, the key  consideration is how the parties have been dealing with the asset – has time shown that they have been treating it as shared between them?
5. A transfer of an asset between spouses in a tax-saving scheme will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared.

In this case, there was no evidence the £80m lump sum had been treated by the parties as shared property. Anna’s entitlement—though relatively modest at £25 million—was deemed a fair outcome.

What does this mean?

This case is one of the most significant rulings on finances on divorce to be handed down in recent years. Divorcing spouses (or civil partners) should not assume that assets and property they consider to be non-matrimonial will be treated as such for the purposes of a fair financial split.

It is clear that the source and use of the assets in question are key considerations, rather than the legal ownership or proportion of assets that are non-marital assets. Dealing with financial matters on divorce can be complex. And where one party owns valuable assets accrued prior to the marriage – there are additional factors to consider.

Helpful links: 

• Case Law for Fair Divorce Settlements
• Impact of extended family wealth on divorce

Get advice from expert Divorce Lawyers

The divorce lawyers at Osbornes Law have extensive experience in advising high-net-worth clients throughout financial proceedings. Our team understands the complexities and sensitivities involved in high-value divorces, ensuring that our clients receive tailored legal guidance.

We are committed to protecting our clients’ interests and achieving fair and equitable outcomes during the division of assets, maintenance disputes, and any other financial issues that may arise during the divorce process.

If you’re seeking expert legal support on divorce, reach us by filling in our online enquiry form or by calling us directly at 020 7485 8811.