Senior Associate Solicitor Stuart Barton shares some insight into the recent Standish vs Standish case…

Stuart Barton

Senior Associate Solicitor

“Well, it may have escaped your notice, but life isn’t fair.”

So says Severus Snape to Harry Potter when remarking upon Harry’s rather tiresome complaints that the world’s most evil wizard seems to have it in for him for some reason. Similar thoughts may resonate after considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Standish v Standish, published on 2 July 2025.

Background of the Case

The case arose out of proceedings between the husband and wife concerning the division of their assets upon divorce. In terms of the background, it was a second marriage for both the husband and the wife. They commenced living together in 2004 in Switzerland, before marrying a year later. There were two children of the marriage itself and the parties separated in the early part of 2020.  The parties were wealthy with the family home being valued at £21.6m at the time of the initial trial dealing with the division of their assets. The total assets held by the parties were in excess of £132m.

The 2017 Asset Transfer and Dispute

During the marriage the husband had transferred a valuable portfolio of investments from his sole name into the wife’s sole name (the 2017 assets). The 2017 assets were valued at nearly £80m by the time of the initial trial.  This transfer was part of a tax planning scheme; it being intended by the husband that the wife would place the 2017 assets in trust for their children as a way of reducing future inheritance tax. However, the wife did not set up these trusts and she continued to hold the investments in her sole name right up to the date of trial.

The parties were unable to reach any agreement upon the resolution of financial matters arising from their divorce. At the heart of their dispute was whether the 2017 assets constituted “matrimonial” or “non-matrimonial property” and whether such asset should be shared equally or otherwise. The husband argued that the 2017 assets had always been non-matrimonial property – the only reason that they had been transferred to the wife was for the purposes of tax planning alone. The wife argued the opposite – when the 2017 assets were transferred into her sole name they changed in their nature from non-matrimonial to matrimonial property, so she was entitled to at least 50% of the assets under the “sharing principle” that commonly applies to matrimonial property.

The Trial Court Decision

When the matter was heard initially at trial, the trial judge reached a decision that most of the 2017 assets transferred to the wife (75% in fact) were non-matrimonial property. However, when such investments were transferred to the wife they became matrimonial property. As a result, the sharing principle applied and it was therefore appropriate that these assets should be shared between the parties. The trial judge concluded that because the source of the 2017 assets was primarily the husband, rather than the wife, the appropriate division of the 2017 assets should not be an equal division. Instead, there should be a 60/40 division in favour of the husband.

A title

Image Box text

The Court of Appeal

Neither the husband nor the wife were satisfied with the reasoning of the trial judge and both of them appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge. They decided that the husband was entitled to 75% of the 2017 assets, together with half of 25% of the assets. This was because only 25% of the 2017 assets represented matrimonial property which should be subject to the sharing principle. The effect of this decision was that the bulk of the 2017 assets were therefore ordered to be returned to the husband.

The Supreme Court Appeal and Final Judgment

The wife remained unhappy with such an outcome and appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal placed too much weight on the husband being the primary source of the 2017 assets. Her view was that if one properly analysed the history of the matter, the transfer of the 2017 assets into her sole name was a gift to her, rather than a calculated decision on the husband’s part to try and reduce future tax liabilities for their children.

The Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stressed that the overall aim of any court when making financial orders arising from divorce is to achieve a fair outcome. The case before them really concerned the application of the sharing principle and the Supreme Court set out five key principles that are relevant to the application of the sharing principle in cases of this nature:

The transfer of the 2017 assets into her sole name was a gift to her, rather than a calculated decision on the husband’s part to try and reduce future tax liabilities for their children.

The Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stressed that the overall aim of any court when making financial orders arising from divorce is to achieve a fair outcome. The case before them really concerned the application of the sharing principle and the Supreme Court set out five key principles that are relevant to the application of the sharing principle in cases of this nature:

Applying the above principles, the Supreme Court held that there was nothing to show in the subject case that over a process of time the parties were treating the 2017 assets as assets that should be shared between the two of them. The sole purpose that existed for the assets to be transferred from the husband to the wife was for tax planning purposes and that planning was for the sole benefit of the children, rather than for the benefit of the wife. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided the outcome of the case and it was appropriate that the husband was entitled to 75% of the 2017 assets plus half of 25% of those investments.

The above decision is but one of a long line of decisions in this area of law that constitute so called “big money” cases where both parties have ample financial resources available to meet their financial needs and both parties are generally free to spend significant sums in their legal arguments (and appeals) without suffering significant detriment. It must be realised that in the vast majority of divorces, assets are far less than £132m and the primary focus of the court is in trying to ensure that financial needs of the parties and of any children of the marriage are met to the fullest extent possible. However, even in cases of this nature it is not unusual for one of the parties to assert that there exists non-matrimonial property and to adopt a position that such property should not be subject to the sharing principle. In modest asset cases, it is all too easy for parties to spend disproportionate and excessive sums arguing upon what is (or is not) matrimonial property and neither may benefit as a result.

Conclusions

For individuals who are either contemplating marriage, or who have entered into marriage, where there are significant non-matrimonial assets in existence, the decision in Standish v Standish may make them far more likely to consider a pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement as an effective way to clearly distinguish between what is to be shared and what is definitely off the table in that respect.