Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing the case of Standish v Standish — a case that could re-shape the way financial settlements are handled on divorce, especially in cases involving substantial pre-marital wealth.
What’s the background?
Mr and Mrs Standish were married for around 18 years and had two children. The husband was extremely wealthy, with most of his wealth acquired before the marriage.
The key issue was a transfer made to Mrs Standish of around £80 million as part of a tax planning arrangement. This sum was almost exclusively made up of Mr Standish’ pre-marital wealth. The explicit understanding was that Mrs Standish would settle these funds into a trust.
Instead of creating the trust, however, Mrs Standish issued divorce proceedings and argued that the money now belonged to her personally — and should be subject to division in the financial remedy process.
The High Court awarded Mrs Standish £45 million, but in May 2024, both parties appealed the original award.
The Court of Appeal then slashed Mrs Standish’ award to £25 million — the largest ever reduction in a financial remedy award by the English courts. The court held that the money, despite being transferred, still retained its non-matrimonial character and should not be shared.
Why is this case so important?
Standish is giving the Supreme Court its first real opportunity in almost 20 years — since White v White in 2000 and Miller; McFarlane in 2006 — to revisit how the courts divide assets on divorce.
At the centre of this case is a big question: how should the courts treat non-matrimonial property — things like inheritance, gifts, or money earned before the marriage? While White v White pushed for fairness and equality, later cases have allowed some assets to be excluded from the pot, depending on how and when they were acquired.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Standish reignited debate. On the one hand, it seemed to reinforce the idea that pre-marital wealth can be kept out of divorce settlements. On the other, it raised questions about what happens when one spouse’s financial needs can’t be met without dipping into those assets.
What issues are the Supreme Court looking at?
The Court will be considering some key questions, such as:
- Should pre-marital or inherited wealth always be excluded?
- Can a spouse’s needs override the ‘non-matrimonial’ status of an asset?
- How much flexibility should judges have in dividing complex wealth?
These are questions that go to the heart of what’s fair — not just in principle, but in real life, especially when big money is involved.
What does this mean for clients and family lawyers?
If you’re someone entering a marriage with significant assets — or advising someone who is — this case could be a game-changer. It could affect how non-matrimonial assets are viewed, and how important things like nuptial agreements become in protecting them.
For family lawyers, a clearer set of rules would be welcome — but so would reassurance that fairness and discretion still play a central role in how financial outcomes are decided.
What’s next?
The hearing will run over two days, and we expect judgment to be reserved for a later date. Once it’s handed down, we’ll publish a full update on what the decision means for clients and for the future of financial remedy law.
In the meantime, if you’d like to talk about how Standish v Standish could impact your situation — or if you’re thinking about planning ahead with asset protection — our family law team is here to help.
