The highly anticipated Supreme Court judgment in Standish v Standish is set to clarify a crucial question for family lawyers, financial advisers, and their clients alike: when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonial property in the context of financial remedy proceedings? For Mrs Standish, this is the final opportunity to secure a greater share of her former husband's pre-marital wealth—wealth that was transferred into her name as part of a tax planning scheme during their marriage, only for the Court of Appeal to rule that this did not transform the assets into matrimonial property.
As Richard Kershaw explains in the following overview, this case has far-reaching implications for wealthy individuals, their advisers, and spouses who may believe that receiving legal title to assets makes them theirs to keep.
The Standish case: When non-matrimonial property becomes a source of dispute
The Supreme Court's ruling, anticipated later this year, will determine whether Mr Standish's substantial pre-marital wealth became part of the matrimonial asset pool after he transferred ownership of certain assets to Mrs Standish in 2017, as part of a tax planning scheme.
For Mrs Standish, the stakes could not be higher. Her appeal challenges the Court of Appeal's decision, which significantly reduced her award by 45%—the largest ever reduction in English divorce history.
How Mr and Mrs Standish built a life together across continents
Some context on the Standish couple is instructive. Their relationship began in 2003, and together they moved from Australia to Switzerland the following year. When Mr Standish retired in 2007, they returned to Australia and later bought a family home in England, where they lived from 2010 onwards with their two children.
Clive Standish, a British national, had built substantial wealth before the marriage—selling his company in the 1980s for £61 million and later serving as regional Chairman and CEO of UBS. By contrast, Anna Standish's assets at the time of the marriage were modest by comparison.
The significance of the 2017 tax planning transfers in the Standish case
The case turns on whether a 2017 tax planning arrangement—under which Mr Standish transferred £77 million and shares in his Australian farm to Mrs Standish—converted non-matrimonial assets into matrimonial property. These transfers were intended to mitigate UK inheritance tax when Mr Standish re-domiciled to the UK, with the understanding that Mrs Standish would settle the assets into a trust for the benefit of their children.
However, Mrs Standish did not do so. Instead, she issued divorce proceedings in 2020, asserting that the assets now belonged to her outright.
The High Court ruling: Moor J's view on "matrimonialisation"
In the High Court, Mr Justice Moor found that the transfers had effectively "matrimonialised" the assets, ruling that £112 million of the total £132 million asset pool was matrimonial property. On that basis, he awarded the wife 40% (£45 million) and the husband 60% (£67 million) of the matrimonial assets.
Both parties appealed: Mrs Standish sought a greater share, while Mr Standish argued that the judge had misapplied the sharing principle.
The Court of Appeal overturns the High Court: the source of wealth remains key
In May last year, the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the High Court decision. It ruled that the 2017 transfers had not changed the fundamental character of the assets: they remained non-matrimonial because they were sourced from wealth generated long before the marriage. The Court described the High Court's application of the sharing principle as "flawed" and the division of assets as "unjustified."
The Court of Appeal judgment emphasised that the source of wealth, rather than legal ownership or title, is critical in determining whether assets should be shared on divorce.
What this means for financial advisers and clients: title, source, and tax planning pitfalls
For financial advisers, the Standish case is a reminder that transferring assets for tax purposes—especially in the context of complex family dynamics—can have unintended consequences in divorce proceedings. The familiar maxim that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" does not always hold true: legal title alone does not necessarily determine entitlement.
This distinction between the source of wealth and the ownership of wealth is critical for advisers to explain to clients when discussing asset protection strategies and tax planning within marriage.
The Supreme Court's decision: a defining moment for asset division in divorce
The Supreme Court's upcoming decision is expected to provide much-needed clarity on when non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial—and whether the transfer of title can alter the character of pre-marital assets in divorce. The ruling will shape the approach of family courts and financial remedy practitioners for years to come.
The Standish case highlights that the source of wealth—when and how it was acquired—can be more important than who holds legal title to it. This distinction will have significant implications for clients seeking to protect pre-marital assets, as well as those seeking to claim a share of assets transferred during a marriage. The Supreme Court's decision will provide a crucial roadmap for advisers working with high-net-worth clients in divorce proceedings.
Originally published by IFA Magazine, 28 May 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
