In an earlier blog, we looked at the high-profile divorce case of Standish v Standish, a legal battle over whether millions of pounds transferred during a marriage should be treated as shared or separate property after the couple split.
The Supreme Court (the highest court in the UK) has now given its final decision, which has big implications for couples going through divorce and especially those with assets brought into the marriage by one party. In short, the ruling sets a high bar for treating pre-marital wealth as joint assets to be shared on divorce unless there is clear evidence of “mingling” with the family pot.
Quick recap – What was the case about?
Mr and Mrs Standish divorced after around 15 years of marriage. During the marriage, Mr Standish transferred about £80 million into Mrs Standish’s sole name. The idea was that this money would go into a trust for their children, to help reduce future inheritance tax bills.
The trust was not established, however, before the marriage broke down. On divorce, Mrs Standish claimed this money had become part of the couple’s shared assets, and that she should get a fair share, not just what she needed to get by.
Mr Standish, on the other hand, said this was non-matrimonial money, meaning it had been built up before the marriage and was never intended to be shared between them.
What did the Courts decide?
- The High Court originally agreed with Mrs Standish, saying the money had become part of their shared assets, albeit they recognised the greater contribution by Mr Standish. Mrs Standish was awarded around £45 million which was about 34% of the total pot.
- The Court of Appeal disagreed, reducing her award to £25 million, stating that the money had remained non-matrimonial as it was never genuinely shared, but rather transferred to Mrs Standish for tax planning purposes, not for joint use.
- The Supreme Court has now backed that decision and, in the judgment, have made clear that this was not a gift or shared marital assets. It remained Mr Standish’s money, even though it was held in Mrs Standish’s name.
What are the practical implications?
Family lawyers have been waiting with bated breath for this judgment because it confirms a few key points about how courts deal with wealth that was brought into a marriage by one party:
- Not everything will be shared on divorce
Although money may have been moved around during a marriage, even into the other spouse’s name, this won’t automatically mean it has become joint property. The Courts will look at why the transfer happened. In this case, the reason was tax and estate planning, not generosity or shared ownership.
- The law protects pre-marital wealth — sometimes
The court made it clear that wealth brought into the marriage by one party can stay theirs provided it hasn’t been mixed into family life. If there’s no clear evidence it was used or treated as shared, it won’t automatically be split on divorce.
- Needs still come first
Even though Mrs Standish didn’t get half, the court still made sure her financial needs were met – including her housing and income needs. Whilst the idea of sharing didn’t apply to the whole asset pot; she still got a fair and substantial award. The courts retain the ability to allocate capital to meet needs, even outside equal sharing or where this involves eating into what might otherwise be pre-marital wealth.
- Importance of nuptial agreements and clear planning
Pre- or post-nuptial agreements, and explicit documentation of asset purpose, are now more important than ever.
Our advice
This case will likely influence estate planning, nuptial agreements, and high-net-worth divorces going forward. Courts are not just looking at names on bank accounts. They’re looking at intentions, circumstances, and whether assets are really part of a couple’s shared life.
If you’re entering a marriage with substantial assets; if you’ve received gifts, inheritances, or large transfers or are considering moving money around post-marriage it’s worth having clear legal documentation about what those assets are for beforehand rather than having to argue these issues before the Court, potentially at great expense, upon divorce.
Documentation of intention and purpose—especially tax-driven—can be decisive. Clients should undertake comprehensive planning when transferring significant assets around or during marriage and consider formal agreements to protect pre-marital wealth.
Similarly, if you’re going through a divorce, it can’t be presumed that everything will be split equally. It often is, especially in long marriages, but courts have flexibility and discretion. The Court will look closely at each case, especially where there are children and/or major differences in wealth involved.
If you’d like advice about protecting your assets or understanding how a court might divide property on divorce, our family law team is here to help.
