Supreme Court Dismisses Wife’s Appeal in Landmark Standish v Standish Case

In the eagerly awaited landmark decision that further clarifies the treatment of matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in financial remedy proceedings, the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal in Standish v Standish. This high-profile case, involving assets exceeding £130 million, has been closely watched for its implications on the application of the sharing principle in divorce. 

If you are considering or going through a divorce, contact Vardags today for a free initial consultation with one of our expert divorce solicitors.  

BOOK FREE CONSULTATION

Background 

As previously summarised in our case overview, the dispute centred around a £77 million transfer made by Mr Standish to his wife in 2017. The transfer was intended to fund a trust for the benefit of their children; however, the trust was never established, and the parties subsequently divorced. 

At first instance, the court treated the £77 million as matrimonial property. The Court of Appeal later overturned this, finding that only 25% of the ‘2017 assets’ were matrimonial, awarding the wife £20 million and returning 75% of the transferred assets to Mr Standish.  

The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the transfer was a gift and should be treated as matrimonial property. 

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning 

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, confirming that: 

• The distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property is fundamental. This distinction generally relies on the source of the assets – non-matrimonial assets will typically be those acquired before the marriage or as an external gift or inheritance. Matrimonial assets are those which are the product of the parties’ common endeavour or comprise the ‘fruits of the marriage’ 

• Non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle. The court was clear that non-matrimonial assets should only be shared on the principles of needs or compensation, otherwise the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets becomes meaningless. 

• Sharing of matrimonial property should normally be on an equal basis. Though there can be justified departures from this, ‘equal sharing is the appropriate and principled starting position.’ 

• The term of “matrimonialisation” was accepted by the Court as a useful shorthand term to describe the process of non-matrimonial property becoming matrimonial. The Court also held that matrimonialisation should not be applied narrowly and what is important is the parties’ treatment of the assets, and whether this indicates that it was dealt with as a shared asset. In summary, ‘matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared.’ 

• The purpose of the 2017 transfer was key. The assets were transferred to the wife to establish a trust for the children - not as a gift for her personal benefit. The fact that the trust was never set up did not alter the original intention behind the transfer. 

Implications 

This judgment provides vital clarification on the scope and limits of the sharing principle in financial remedy proceedings. It reinforces the central importance of both the source of assets and the intention behind their use when determining whether they fall within the matrimonial pot. 

It also marks a significant moment in the evolution of family law, as the Supreme Court explicitly recognises the term ‘matrimonialisation’ as a useful shorthand for the process of non-matrimonial assets becoming matrimonial, due to them being mingled with other matrimonial assets over the course of the marriage or relied upon by the parties as a shared asset, and therefore become subject to being shared upon divorce. 

The decision will likely influence future high-net-worth divorce cases, particularly where large transfers are made for estate planning or tax purposes shortly before separation. It underscores that the intended purpose of a transfer - and how the parties subsequently deal with the assets - will be critical in determining whether those assets are to be shared. 

You can access the judgment here.