Supreme Court ruling in Standish v Standish: What it means for dividing assets on divorce

A landmark ruling from the UK Supreme Court in the case of Standish v Standish has provided long-awaited clarity on how non-matrimonial assets are treated in divorce, and more importantly, when and how they become subject to the sharing principle.

At the heart of this case was a dispute over a significant transfer of wealth, nearly £78 million, from Mr Standish to his wife during their marriage as part of a tax planning exercise. The wife argued that this transfer had become matrimonial property and should be subject to sharing under the same principles that typically apply to assets built up during the marriage.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

What has been decided

In a unanimous judgment handed down in July 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, reinstated the decision of the Court of Appeal, and upheld a reduced award of £25 million. This followed a reduction from the original £45 million award made at trial.

Most importantly, the Court used the opportunity to set out five key principles which reshape how the family courts should approach claims for the sharing of non-matrimonial wealth:

1. There is a clear conceptual distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property: Matrimonial property reflects the fruits of the couple’s shared efforts during the marriage. In contrast, non-matrimonial property such as premarital wealth, gifts, or inheritances, generally falls outside of this category.
2. The sharing principle only applies to matrimonial property: The Supreme Court has now made it clear: unless assets have been truly integrated into the marital partnership, they are not automatically up for division, even if transferred between spouses.
3. Matrimonial property should, as a starting point, be shared equally
4. To ‘matrimonialise’ a non-matrimonial asset, there must be a consistent pattern of shared use or treatment: Mere ownership or transfer is not enough.
5. Tax planning transfers may amount to sharing: Where assets are transferred between spouses for the purposes of tax efficiency, that transfer alone is not enough to indicate an intention to share them.

Why this matters

This judgment gives greater certainty to individuals who bring wealth into a marriage, particularly where there are pre-marital assets, family wealth, or complex financial planning structures in place. It also clarifies that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking to argue that an asset has become matrimonialised.

As family lawyers, we now have a clear test: did the parties treat the asset as shared, and was there an intention to integrate it into the marital partnership?

Where that intention cannot be evidenced, those assets will likely remain non-matrimonial and not fall into the pool of assets for equal sharing, although they may still be considered where needed to meet a party’s needs.

Victoria’s view

Victoria Cannon, Head of Family Law, said:

“This ruling is a defining moment in family law. It sends a strong message that wealth built up before marriage or held separately will not be automatically swept into the matrimonial pot just because it was transferred between spouses. There must be clear evidence that both parties intended the asset to be shared. The decision provides welcome certainty for clients seeking to protect non-matrimonial wealth while also ensuring a fair and principled approach to division on divorce.”

We work with clients across a range of complex family law matters, including those involving pre-acquired wealth, family businesses, trusts, and tax structures. This ruling will significantly influence how we advise clients going forward, whether they are seeking to protect their wealth or challenge the status of an asset.

Impact for clients

This judgement paves the way for consideration of whether assets are matrimonial or not and what actions will be considered by parties to determine if assets have been matrimonialised. This ruling not only applies to big money cases but also sets a precedent for any matrimonial financial cases where allegations are made regarding the status of assets brought into the marriage or those mingled within the marriage. We are now have a clearer picture to apply to these scenarios and advise clients.