A landmark judgment in Standish v Standish [2025], a Supreme Court case has confirmed how courts treat pre-marital wealth and intra-spousal transfers in divorce proceedings across England and Wales. In this blog, we review the facts, trace the legal journey through the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and assess the implications for anyone navigating financial remedy proceedings, especially those with significant inheritance-tax planning or non-matrimonial assets.

Key facts of the case

The parties: Clive (ex-UBS CFO) and Anna Standish married in 2005, divorced in 2020.

This was a second marriage for both parties. They had 3 children each in their previous marriages and together they had a further 2 children. Clive was born in the UK whereas Anna is an Australian national.

All of Mr Standish’s assets, except two joint bank accounts and a matrimonial home (worth £21.6 million) were held solely in his name and constituted his non‑marital property.

In 2017, as part of a tax planning exercise Clive transferred £80 million to Anna by agreement, with the intention and expectation that Anna would settle the transferred assets into a trust for the benefit of their children. The trusts were never established. The funds remained in her sole name when divorce proceedings began in April 2020.

The parties arguments

In the High Court and Court of Appeal, Anna argued that the assets had moved from being Clive’s non-marital property to her non-marital property after the transfer in 2017. She stated that the only reason they were available for sharing was because she voluntarily made them available meaning the Court could not go beyond the 50/50 share she had offered.

In the Supreme Court, Anna argued that the 2017 transfer ‘matrimonialised’ the assets and therefore making them part of the matrimonial pot. That being the case, she argued that they should, by default, be shared equally (50/50).

Whereas Clive argued throughout the proceedings that the £80 million originally came from his pre-marital earnings and remained non‑marital property despite the transfer. The transfer was for inheritance tax planning and children’s benefit, not to create shared wealth and therefore didn’t alter their non-marital status. He argued that as they are non‑marital assets, they fall outside the sharing principle.

In the alternative, if the assets did become marital as a result of the transfer, Clive argued that the assets should not be split 50/50 to take into account the non‑marital source.

Clive’s position throughout was that the award of £25 million represented the correct and fair outcome to the case.

Court outcome and pathway to the Supreme Court

 High Court (2022)

Ruled in Anna’s favour that the 2017 transfer ‘matrimonialised’ these assets but agreed with Clive that the pre-marital source of the assets was a significant consideration.

Decided that the appropriate divisions of the assets should 40/60 split in Clive’s favour.

The overall division of the total assets was 34/66 to Clive, providing for Anna to receive a sum of £45 million. 

Both Anna and Clive appealed this decision.

Court of Appeal (May 2024)

Clive was successful in his appeal and the Court determined the 2017 transfer did not matrimonialise these assets. They ruled the majority (75%) of these assets was non-matrimonial, and just 25% was matrimonial attributing to the fact that Clive worked for a short time during the marriage before he retired in 2007.

This reduced Anna’s settlement to £25 million, marking the largest-ever reduction of a divorce award in England and Wales (45% cut of around £20 million).

Anna appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court (2 July 2025)

Unanimously dismissed Anna’s appeal, upholding the Court of Appeal decision.

Five core principles are outlined within the Judgment by Lords Burrows & Stephens:

1. Distinguish clearly between non‑matrimonial and matrimonial property.
2. The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property.
3. Equal division (50/50 split) is the starting point for matrimonial assets.
4. Matrimonialisation can occur if non-matrimonial assets are treated as shared.
5. Transfers for tax planning do not ordinarily lead to sharing, regardless of title or how long the asset is held.

The Supreme Court determined the full 75% remained non‑matrimonial, with only the remaining 25% split equally, confirming Anna’s £25 million award.

What this means for future financial remedy cases

Greater certainty, especially for High Net Worth Individuals.

• Clarity on asset treatment: Pre-marital or inheritance-based wealth transferred within the marriage does not automatically become matrimonial merely because title transferred or the asset was retained in joint ownership.
• Source and treatment matter most: Judges will now closely examine where assets came from and how they were used/shared, rather than relying on paper title alone. 

Anticipated surge in nuptial agreement use

• The judgment reinforces the need for clearly documented intentions, such as pre-nuptial / post-nuptial agreements, especially in tax and inheritance contexts. 
• Wealth advisers and legal experts expect a rise in structured trusts, clear transfer documentation, and pre-nups to safeguard assets.

Final thoughts

Standish v Standish marks an important moment in financial remedy law for very wealthy individuals. It affirms that:

• Only matrimonial assets are subject to the default 50/50 sharing rule.
• Non-matrimonial wealth, especially when transferred for tax or inheritance planning, can remain ring-fenced provided there’s no clear treatment as shared assets.
• Clarity around source, intent, treatment and documentation is now fundamental in all non-needs-based divorces across England & Wales.

For anyone navigating or advising on divorce settlements, particularly where substantial family wealth or tax strategies are involved, it’s now more important than ever to trace asset origins , document intentions and use nuptial agreements to preserve intended outcomes.

If you need legal advice, contact us in complete confidence. Call 0800 138 0458 email help@switalskis.com or complete the form below