We hope this commentary is valuable to readers. The usual editorial disclaimers apply to views of guest writers. To comment, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

The Supreme Court hearing for the Standish v Standish case, held on 30 April and 1 May, has piqued the interest of more than just family law professionals. This case, between Clive and Anna Standish, has drawn attention to one of the most contentious issues in financial remedy cases in England and Wales – to what extent can property be matrimonialised? 

The judgment is, at the time of writing, awaited. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for ultra-high net worth and HNW individuals, as well as setting a new precedent for the way assets are treated on divorce across the board. It may well influence how family law, and wealth management professionals, advise clients in future, specifically in nuptial agreements and the protection of pre-marital wealth. 

Matrimonial vs non-matrimonial property
It is not uncommon for HNW individuals to enter their marriages with wealth and assets already accumulated. Over the course of the marriage, more may be generated by either or both parties, to be held in sole or joint names. In divorce, the ownership, and therefore the division of, these assets, can be cause for dispute.

The law sees division of property based on the sharing principle, whereby matrimonial property is, as a starting point, shared equally if the needs of each party have been met. What this looks like varies case-by-case.

Complexities can arise over the "terminology" of matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Matrimonial assets include property, bank accounts, shares, investments, anything worth over £500. Importantly, these assets need to have been accrued during the marriage, often because of a joint effort, although the decision that one party works and the other stays at home looking after the home/children does not preclude assets from being matrimonial. They are usually shared and used for the benefit of the couple and any children.

Non-matrimonial property is less easily defined. However, it is generally acknowledged to be any assets that were brought into the marriage by either party. In some cases, wealth and assets are generated between the period of separation and the finalisation of divorce can also be considered non-matrimonial. 

Matrimonial assets are the marital pot, available to be divided. Unless the needs of one or both parties cannot be met with only the matrimonial assets, non-matrimonial assets are retained by their owner.

Standish v Standish – a case analysis 
Matrimonial v non-matrimonial property has been the central dispute in the Standish case.

The couple were married in 2005 and had two children together during the marriage. The wife remained at home to care for the children whilst Mr Standish enjoyed a successful career in financial services. In the years between marriage and separation in 2020, significant wealth was acquired to add to exceptional assets brought into to the marriage by the husband. 

The sticking point came in 2017, when the husband transferred circa £77 million to the wife as part of a tax planning strategy. This money was to be held in trusts for the children. However, by the time the wife filed for divorce in 2020, the money, which had appreciated to approximatel £80 million was still in her sole name.

The final hearing was held at the High Court before Moor J, producing an anonymised judgment ARQ v YAQ EWFC 128. The question posed to Moor J was whether the transfer of funds should be treated as matrimonial property. The judge found that the assets had become matrimonial through the 2017 transfer, although acknowledged that they had come from Mr Standish’s non-matrimonial property. A 60/40 split in favour of the husband was awarded, the wife receiving £45m.

Both husband and wife appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court, finding that the assets had been generated before the marriage and thus should not be considered matrimonial property, nor had the transfer in 2017 indicated a desire to share the assets should the marriage break down. This judgment resulted in the largest reduction in a financial award ever ordered by the Court of Appeal: with the wife’s award reducing from £45 million to £25 million.

The case was heard at the Supreme Court at the end of April 2025. The outcome is eagerly anticipated.

The relevance of Standish v Standish
Although this is far from the first case where couples have disputed the matrimonialisation of assets, this is a landmark case heard by the Supreme Court, and the decision may provide the much anticipated clarity on treatment of assets in financial remedy cases.

It is likely to have implications in several key areas, not least in the importance and popularity of nuptial agreements. 

In the event that the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal decision
Should the Supreme Court maintain that the transferred assets are non-matrimonial property, individuals can feel more confident in estate planning. However, it will be important for any tax-motivated transfers to be properly managed and navigated effectively by professionals. 

If there is an intention for any property being transferred to become matrimonialised, then ensuring that this is appropriately recorded will become essential to protect the receiving party from the transferor from later changing their mind if the parties were to separate and divorce. 

In the event that the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal decision
Should the Supreme Court declare the assets matrimonial, thereby undercutting the Court of Appeal’s judgment, and the weight shifts from the source of the asset to the intention behind use or transfer. Wealth management experts, as well as family law professionals, will need to be prepared to advise on how to protect wealth. It is likely that family lawyers will see an increase in nuptial agreements, put in place to ringfence assets in the event of relationship breakdown. 

In either case, it is hoped that this decision will remove any ambiguity and will set case law in future for the treatment of non-matrimonial assets, and a basis of understanding what constitutes matrimonialisation of assets.

Advising wealthy clients
Protection strategies may become more focal for high net worth individuals. Advice to clients will need to be made in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly concerning the transfer of assets, and wealth management professionals will need to be aware of the implications of the decision on how finances and assets should be treated during marriage. 

It is advisable that clients also work closely with an expert family lawyer to draw up a nuptial agreement which sets out all assets and property, and how it should be held during marriage, and in the event of divorce. Although nuptial agreements are not currently legally binding, they can hold weight in court when prepared correctly with legal advice, financial disclosure and when they are entered into by both parties willingly.