Analysis of Standish and Standish

By Anna Patsalides

Associate Solicitor

30 June 2025

Insights News

1 May 2025 marked the last day of the long-awaited appeal of the case of Standish (Appellant) v Standish (Respondent) before the Supreme Court (the highest Court in England and Wales), which concerns the division of matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets on divorce. The outcome of the case is likely to represent a fundamental decision in family law and will likely set a precedent for how the Courts will view pre-marital wealth and how this intermingles with matrimonial assets in future divorce cases.

The case concerns ultra-high net worth but nevertheless the ripple effect of this case is likely to trickle down throughout the family courts. The Supreme Court’s Judgment is eagerly awaited by UK family practitioners and Judges alike. Whilst the parties lived in the UK from 2010, prior to this they spent time in Australia and Switzerland and therefore this case is likely to be of interest to parties who divide their time between the UK and other jurisdictions, particularly when considering the likely outcome of such proceedings in the jurisdiction of England and Wales when compared to other jurisdictions.  

Clive Standish, who hereon I will refer to as the Husband, had a very successful career in the financial services industry and he had generated the majority of his wealth prior to his relationship with Anna Standish, hereon referred to as the Wife. They married in 2005 and had two children together. The Husband retired two years later in 2007 and the Wife for the duration of the marriage stayed at home and cared for the children.

The majority of the Husband’s wealth was held in his sole name. In 2017, following receipt of tax planning advice, the Husband transferred circa £77 million to the Wife, on the understanding that the Wife would then settle this asset into a Trust for the benefit of their two children. Before the Trust was set up, the Wife commenced divorce proceedings in 2020, at which point the 2017 assets were still held in her sole name.

High Court Decision

The Wife argued that the critical factor the Court should take into account was whose name the assets were in, despite the source of those assets, i.e. having been acquired by the Husband prior to the marriage. The Husband argued that the 2017 assets were only transferred to the Wife as part of a tax planning exercise and given they were generated pre-marriage should be treated as his non-matrimonial property.

The High Court found that the transfer of the 2017 assets from the Husband’s sole name to the Wife’s sole name resulted in them being “matrimonalised”. Whilst not defined in statue, the principle of “matrimonialisation” has been a common concept in family law for a number of years. It essentially refers to how an asset or assets which could at one stage be classified as non matrimonial become matrimonial property over a period of time because of the way in which they have been used or dealt with during the marriage, thereby meaning they become part of the matrimonial pot when the parties separate and therefore subject to the sharing principle.

The Judge found that the matrimonial pot of £112 million (including the 2017 assets transferred to the Wife) should be divided on an unequal basis and justified a departure from equality on the basis that the 2017 assets were pre-marital and only became “matrimonised” towards the end of the marriage. This resulted in the Wife receiving/retaining 40% of the matrimonial pot (£45 million) and the Husband receiving/retaining 60% (£67 million). 

The Wife appealed to the Court of Appeal to increase her sharing entitlement to half of the asset base while the Husband cross-appealed, arguing that certain assets were non-matrimonial and should not have been included in the matrimonial pot.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal marked a significant departure from the High Court’s decision and resulted in the Wife’s award being reduced by circa £20 million; considered to be the largest reduction in an award ever made by an appeal Court..

The principal issue before the Court of Appeal was how the transfer of the 2017 assets should be brought within the sharing principle and Moylan LJ carefully considered whether the legal title to the property is most important or whether the source of the original wealth is the crucial factor in determining whether an asset is regarded as non-matrimonial or matrimonial. The Court of Appeal favoured the latter interpretation. The Court determined that what is important to consider is to what extent and manner non-matrimonial property has been mixed with matrimonial property and become matrimonialised.  The concept of matrimonialisation should continue to be applied but more narrowly.

Effect of the Decision

If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal decision then this could result in the Court having to carry out a much more in-depth investigation when considering whether an asset has become matrimonialised.  This will likely lead to more litigation and submissions from parties on how non-matrimonial assets and matrimonial assets have been intermingled. There is likely to be a lot more room for multiple layers of arguments regarding matrimalisation and inevitably make it more difficult for practitioners to confidently advise their clients on the likely outcome, causing greater uncertainty for those involved in such proceedings.

Conversely, if the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal decision, then this will likely make it easier for parties in such cases to argue that once non-matrimonial assets should now be treated as matrimonial and be subject to the sharing principle.

What is clear, however, is that in circumstances where the parties to a marriage have substantial pre-marital wealth, they should seek to enter into a Pre-Nuptial Agreement prior to the marriage (or a Post-Nuptial Agreement following the marriage) to ensure their assets can be protected in the event of a future divorce. 

If you require any guidance on this subject or for family law advice please contact Taylor Walton’s family team here.

Disclaimer: General Information Provided Only
Please note that the contents of this article are intended solely for general information purposes and should not be considered as legal advice. We cannot be held responsible for any loss resulting from actions or inactions taken based on this article.