Standish v Standish: Sharing Assets

overview

In the landmark case of Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, the Court of Appeal applied the largest ever reduction of a financial award in UK divorce history, decreasing the wife’s £45 million award to £25 million.

The case is one of the most significant in recent years, clarifying whether premarital assets can become ‘matrimonialised’ and therefore subject to the principle of equal sharing.

The Appeal Court judges declared that the previous application of the ‘sharing principle’—which holds that matrimonial assets should be shared equally unless there is a valid reason to deviate—was ‘flawed’ and led to an ‘unjustified division of the family’s wealth in the wife’s favour’. 

You can read the judgment in full here. 

Case Background 

Mr Standish had a highly successful career in financial services, generating the majority of his asset base before the relationship began. The parties started cohabiting in 2004, married in 2005 and later had two children together. Mrs Standish was a homemaker throughout the parties’ relationship and Mr Standish retired in 2007. 

Central to the case was the £77 million that Mr Standish had transferred to his wife in 2017 as part of a tax and estate planning arrangement, intended to be placed in a trust for their children. However, Mrs Standish filed for divorce before the arrangement could be finalised. 

Mrs Standish argued that the amount had been ‘gifted’ and therefore should be considered to have been ‘matrimonialised’ and taken into consideration when calculating her settlement. Nonetheless, lawyers for Mr Standish contended that the transfer of funds did not change the fact that the assets were primarily earned by Mr. Standish before the marriage, making them ‘non-matrimonial’. 

At the time of the first instance hearing in 2022, the total value of the assets was approximately £132 million of which the 2017 transferred assets represented £77. The first instance judge, Moor J, determined that £112 million was matrimonial property (which included the £77 million transferred) and £20 million was non-matrimonial property. Accordingly, the original award gave £45 million to Mrs Standish and £67 million to Mr Standish in a 40:60 split of the £112 million. 

Unhappy with this result, Mrs Standish brought an appeal seeking to increase her £45 million award to £66 million, claiming that she should be apportioned half of the couple’s total wealth of £132 million. However, the Court of Appeal not only dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal but also allowed a cross-appeal from Mr Standish that the source of the funds, primarily accumulated before the marriage, was a crucial factor that had been inadequately considered by the first instance judge. As a result, Mrs Standish’s award was reduced to £20 million, making it the largest ever reduction in UK divorce history. 

Implications of the judgement on the sharing principle

This case considered the proper application of the sharing principle. 

The English family court’s approach to asset division upon divorce is based on its unrestrained power to enforce whatever financial settlement it considers fair. One of the key principles of fairness is the ‘sharing principle’, based on the fundamental concept of equality within a marriage. Marriage is often described as a partnership of equals and therefore the sharing principle states that when the partnership ends, the parties should share "the fruits of the matrimonial partnership" 

It was common ground that the sharing principle applies to ‘matrimonial’ property and does not apply to ‘non-matrimonial property’. However, this case further clarified what makes an asset matrimonial and non-matrimonial and also guided the way a non-matrimonial property can be matrimonialised – or in other words, become an asset to which the sharing principle applies.  

The first instance judge was found to have erred because his conclusion was based solely on the fact that the £77 million in assets were transferred by Mr Standish to Mrs Standish’s name – as a result, making the title of the assets the determinative factor when deciding how to characterise the wealth. However, as clarified by the Court of Appeal, the source of the assets is what determines the character of the assets (whether they are ‘matrimonial’ or ‘non-matrimonial’). 

Why is this so important? This is because ‘matrimonial’ assets are subject to division in financial proceedings upon a divorce. However, if the assets are categorised as ‘non-matrimonial’, then they may not be subject to division – unless required to meet the ‘needs’ of party. To learn more on ‘matrimonial’ and ‘non-matrimonial’ assets, read our guide by clicking here. 

The wife’s appeal was heard by the Supreme Court on 30 April and 1 May 2025, considering further how property may become ‘matrimonialised’ and how the principle of equal sharing of matrimonial property should be applied to such property. You can watch the sessions of the hearing on the Supreme Court website. 

Update: The Supreme Court rejected the wife’s appeal, handing down judgment on July 2nd 2025. Read our analysis on why the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding that ‘matrimonialisation’ had not occurred.

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

Related reads: 

Vardags | Sharing, needs and compensation: navigating divorce settlements 

Vardags | How straightforward is the ’sharing principle’? 

Vardags | Shares or needs? How to decide on maintenance awards 

Vardags | Court of Appeal departs from equal sharing principle for successful business woman 

Vardags | Deviation from the sharing principle in divorce case