Standish v Standish: Landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and the sharing principle

The Supreme Court judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 was published on 2 July 2025, having been eagerly awaited by family law practitioners following the hearing at the end of April.

The judgment provides welcome clarification on the application of fundamental principles of family law, in seeking to answer the question: when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonial property in the context of financial remedy proceedings, and how should the sharing principle be applied to such property.

The decision in Standish is the first Supreme Court judgment in almost 20 years to consider the family law concepts of sharing and matrimonialisation. As such, it will have ramifications for those divorcing and trying to reach a financial settlement and it is highly relevant for those advising individuals on wealth planning and protection. What the judgment makes clear is that how the parties treat assets during a marriage will be key to determining how they should be treated on divorce.

This article summarises the relevant background and litigation history, the Supreme Court judgment and what effect this is likely to have in practice. 

The background

By way of brief factual background, Mr Standish (72) and Mrs Standish (57), began a relationship in 2003 and married in 2005, having both been married before. They have two children together. Mr Standish had generated significant wealth through a highly successful career in the financial services sector. He retired in 2007, just two years after the marriage. Mrs Standish was a homemaker throughout the relationship. The vast majority of Mr Standish’s wealth was held in his sole name. That was until 2017, when Mr Standish transferred c. £80 million to Mrs Standish for the purposes of tax planning. It was agreed Mrs Standish would settle the funds into a trust for the benefit of their children, but she did not do so. Mrs Standish subsequently issued divorce proceedings in April 2020.

At a final hearing in the High Court, the total assets in the case were found to be £132 million, of which £112 million was deemed matrimonial, including the £80 million in investment funds transferred to Mrs Standish. These funds, although non-matrimonial initially, were considered matrimonialised due to the 2017 transfer. The court divided the total £112 million unequally, awarding Mr Standish 60% (£67 million) to recognise the non-matrimonial source of the assets, and Mrs Standish 40% (£45 million).

Mrs Standish appealed the decision, arguing that the investment funds had not been matrimonialised, and should be retained by her in full as they were in her sole name and therefore her sole property. She claimed Mr Standish could have protected his pre-marital wealth via a pre-or post-marital agreement but did not do so. Mr Standish cross-appealed, asserting the funds were non-matrimonial due to their source, and were transferred solely for tax purposes. He maintained that the funds should be retained by him in full.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal and reduced her award to £25 million, ruling the 2017 transfer did not automatically matrimonialise the funds. It held that 75% of the funds, given their source, should remain non-matrimonial. On the broader concept of matrimonialisation and the application of the sharing principle, the Court of Appeal held that sharing of non-matrimonial property that has been matrimonialised is an exception to the sharing principle and should only be applied narrowly, where required in the interests of fairness, and that the source of the asset is the critical factor when determining what proportion of the asset should be shared, and not title or ownership.

Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal was wrong to find the 2017 transfer had not matrimonialised the funds and that matrimonialised assets should be divided equally. Mr Standish supported the Court of Appeal’s narrow application of matrimonialisation.

Supreme Court judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal (although did not agree with all its reasoning). The Supreme Court recognised that the overall aim of a court in making a financial order on divorce is to achieve a fair outcome and confirmed the following five principles that are relevant to the application of the sharing principle:

1. There is a distinction between non-matrimonial property (pre-marital property brought into the marriage by one of the parties, or property acquired by one party by external gift or inheritance) and matrimonial property (the “fruits of the marriage”, the marriage partnership or the product of the parties’ common endeavour). Which party has legal title to the property is not determinative of whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial.
2. The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property and not to non-matrimonial property.
3. The starting point is that matrimonial property should be shared on an equal basis (though there may be justified departures from that position).
4. What starts as non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial through ‘matrimonialisation’. The important consideration is whether that transformation has occurred, over time, by the parties treating the asset as shared.
5. A transfer of an asset between spouses designed to save tax, irrespective of the time period involved, will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared and so will not normally constitute matrimonialisation.

In applying those principles to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the Court of Appeal’s decision. The 75% of the investment funds that were found to be non-matrimonial had not been matrimonialised, as there was nothing to show that, over time, the parties treated the funds as shared between them – the transfer to Mrs Standish was to save tax and it was for the benefit of the children and not for her benefit.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court did not agree with the Court of Appeal’s assessment that matrimonialisation should be applied as a ‘narrow’ exception to the sharing principle, but also held that it would be inaccurate to say it should be applied widely. It is neither narrow nor wide – what it is important to consider is how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether this shows that, over time, they have been treating the asset as shared between them.

Key takeaways

Where there are arguments about whether or not as asset has been matrimonialised in a case, the key question is whether, over time, the parties have treated what was once non-matrimonial property as shared between them. To determine this, a detailed analysis of the evidence and facts of the specific case will be necessary.

The principles established in Standish are straightforward to apply in cases where the non-matrimonial and matrimonial assets are easy to determine, but leave scope for interpretation where the distinction is not so obvious. To take an example:

1. If one party brings funds into the marriage or inherits them during the marriage and leaves those untouched and invested in a separate account in their sole name throughout the marriage, this would clearly be non-matrimonial property in the traditional sense and likely be retained by that party in the event of divorce (subject to needs).
2. If the party that owned the funds subsequently transferred them (or a portion of them) into an investment account in joint names with their spouse, and actively involved them in investment and/or spending decisions, this is likely to be an example of property being treated by the parties as shared between them and therefore matrimonialised. If the funds are found to have been matrimonialised, they would be subject to the sharing principle and likely divided equally between them on divorce (although note that, applying the fifth principle from the Supreme Court judgment, if the funds were transferred into the other party’s sole name purely for tax saving purposes then this would not necessarily be determinative as to it being matrimonialised).
3. What about if the funds are kept in a separate account in the original owner’s sole name, but the funds are used, at their discretion, toward marital endeavours, such as family holidays and other joint purchases, then would this constitute matrimonialisation? The distinction is not so clear cut in these circumstances and the treatment of the funds on divorce therefore less certain. There would no doubt be an argument on the part of the owner in title that they should retain the funds on the basis they have always been held in their name, spent at their discretion, and kept separate from the other party. However, the other party may now use Standish as authority that to base an award purely on title would run counter to the sharing principle, and that in reality the funds have been matrimonialised on the basis that they were a shared resource available to them, and used for joint benefit, throughout the marriage.

Whilst the judgment certainly provides more clarity and guidance on the question it sought to answer, it is perhaps a further example of family case law that leaves plenty of room for the family court to continue to exercise its discretion in seeking to achieve a fair outcome in each case. It is also important to remember that Standish is a ‘big money’ case, and in many cases, the court’s focus will be ensuring both parties needs are met. It remains the case that having a pre- or post- nuptial agreement, will offer the best protection and allow the parties to affirm whether assets should be ‘matrimonial’ and shared or ‘non-matrimonial’ and ring-fenced on divorce regardless of how the parties used them during the marriage.

As each case will be determined on its own facts, it is important to take advice at an early stage and the Burges Salmon Family Law Team can assist with this and all issues following relationship breakdown.

This article was written by India Jenkins (Solicitor in the Family Team) and Richard Handel (Partner in the Family Team).