Ask an Expert

What

the

Supreme Court’s Standish

v

Standish ruling means for wealth and divorce

Emily Prince, Associate Solicitor in Family Law, answers key questions following an important judgment relating to matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

What is the Standish v Standish case about?

This Supreme Court case involved a divorcing couple where the husband, Clive Standish, had transferred around £80 million to his wife, Anna, during their marriage. The transfer was part of a longterm estate plan for their children, but on divorce, Anna argued the assets should be treated as matrimonial property and shared equally.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

On 2 July 2025, the Court dismissed Anna’s appeal and ruled in favour of the husband. It found the transferred assets were non-matrimonial, as they were not intended for mutual use or benefit during the marriage. This was a key distinction: the money had been set aside for the children and was never “matrimonialised”. This would not necessarily apply the same in cases where “needs” and “compensation” principles have to be considered, where assets are more modest.

What counts as matrimonial property in divorce?

Matrimonial property generally includes assets built up during the marriage, through the couple’s joint efforts. These are usually divided equally. By contrast, non-matrimonial property (such as pre-marital wealth, inheritance, or gifts) can remain separate, unless the couple treats them as shared or mingles them with family finances.

Why is this decision so significant?

This is the clearest confirmation to date that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. The Court has underlined that not all wealth transferred between spouses becomes matrimonial just because it happens during a marriage. This has major implications for estate planning, particularly for HNW individuals and business owners.

What does this mean for people with family wealth or trusts?

If you have inherited or pre-marital assets or are using trusts as part of family succession planning, this decision reinforces the importance of keeping that wealth distinct; both in how it’s structured as well as how it’s used. Any intention to keep it outside the marital pot should be well documented and consistent in practice.

Does this only affect ultra-high-net-worth individuals?

No. While the sums in Standish were unusually high, The Supreme Court did make clear that non-matrimonial property can be subject to the principles of “needs” and “compensation”. It must be said that where assets are not millions, it is more likely for those non-matrimonial assets to potentially have intermingled, making it harder to draw a line between what should be awarded to who. Courts will still consider financial “needs” where assets are more limited, but where wealth allows, this decision makes it easier to argue for protection of assets to be deemed “non-matrimonial”.

What practical steps should individuals take?

Now is the time to:

• Review how inherited or personal assets are held and used.

• Ensure estate planning and trust arrangements are clearly documented.

• Consider or revisit pre- and post-nuptial agreements.

• Seek legal advice before making large transfers or gifts within marriage.

Final thoughts?

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides some clarity, but of course every case is unique. This is why while relationships evolve, financial intentions must be made clear; especially when wealth, family, and future planning intersect. It is always best to pre-empt any issue rather than address a messy situation!

Emily Prince is an Associate Solicitor in the Family Law team at Amphlett Lissimore Solicitors, specialising in high net worth and financial matters with international elements.