Standish v Standish

A recent Supreme Court case, Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 has provided greater clarity regarding the classification of assets and when non-matrimonial assets will be deemed ‘matrimonialised’.

This is important as the Court decision clarifies that a “non-matrimonial asset” is not subject to being shared in the way that a matrimonial asset would. Please note that in the vast majority of cases ring-fencing of assets would not succeed as if needs cannot be met on the matrimonial assets alone then non-matrimonial assets will be included in the overall assets for distribution in order to meet those needs. It is only in those cases which exceed needs (sharing cases) that this becomes a key distinction.

“Matrimonialisation” is a term used by lawyers to describe the process by which an asset, originally brought into the marriage by one spouse (and considered non-matrimonial), becomes mingled with shared assets due to its treatment during the marriage. For example, if one spouse enters the marriage with an inheritance and uses those funds to purchase the family home in joint names, without any formal agreement it would be challenging for that spouse to argue that the inheritance should remain protected (ring fenced ) and not be treated as a matrimonial asset during divorce proceedings. This is because the inheritance was used for the benefit of the family as a whole and therefore, despite its source being “non-matrimonial” has become a matrimonial asset and therefore available for sharing.

Standish v Standish – Background of the case

This case involved a wealthy couple married for approximately 15 years, with two children together. During the marriage, the wife was a homemaker, while the husband had a successful career in the financial services industry, retiring in 2007. The husband brought the majority of the couple’s assets into the marriage, amounting to around £57 million. His financial success continued to grow throughout their marriage.

In 2017, the husband transferred roughly £80 million to the wife to establish a trust for their children’s benefit, intending to minimize inheritance tax. However, in 2020, the wife initiated divorce proceedings, having failed to transfer the £80 million into a trust, and instead kept the funds in her sole name.

The case was first heard by Moor J in ARQ v YAQ [2022], where the Judge ruled that the transfer of assets resulted in matrimonialisation of those funds. Nevertheless, the husband’s significant contribution and the source of the wealth did play a pivotal role in the decision of distributing the assets. As a result, the wife was awarded an unequal share of the assets, amounting to £45 million (34% of the total).

Both parties appealed, seeking a larger share of the assets. The decision of Moylan LJ in the Court of Appeal determined that too much weight was placed upon the funds being held in the wife’s sole name (title) and that not enough emphasis was placed on the source of the funds. The Court of Appeal therefore decided that the majority of the assets had in fact not been “matrimonialised” and that the wife’s share of the assets should be reduced to £25 million to reflect this. The Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of applying the matrimonialisation principle ‘narrowly’.

Unsurprisingly, the wife, not content with this position, appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

The outcome of the Supreme Court Judgment

Through their Judgment, the Supreme Court provided clarity on matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets and confirmed that matrimonial assets should be shared equally unless there is a justifiable reason to depart from equality. Non-matrimonial assets should not be shared equally e.g. they can be argued as ring-fenced from division (but would be considered if required to meet needs or compensation arguments etc).

Whilst the Supreme Court upheld the decision made at the Court of Appeal, they rejected the notion that matrimonalisation should be applied ‘narrowly’, stating ‘there is no good reason to treat matrimonialisation as a narrow concept. It is neither narrow nor wide’.

The focus should be on ‘how the parties have been dealing with the assets and whether this shows, over time they have been treating the asset as shared between them’. Therefore, when looking at whether matrimonialisation has occurred the key features will be to consider intention of the parties and the treatment of those assets.

There are likely to remain many disputes over what is, and what is not, a matrimonial asset – the best way to avoid such disputes is to have clarity around what you each would intend to be matrimonial and non-matrimonial from the outset.

How can I protect non-matrimonial assets?

For individuals entering a marriage with significant assets or high net worth, protecting those interests and ensuring security may be top of their minds. Similarly, those who are entering a marriage with little assets might want security and clarity that they would, if the relationship sadly breaks down, receive a fair share.

Prenuptial agreements (“pre-nups”) and postnuptial agreements (“Post-nups”) are essential tools that can help couples safeguard their wealth and clarify the terms of their relationship should separation or divorce occur. Pre-nups are agreements you enter into prior to the marriage and Post-nups are agreements entered into any time after the marriage. These agreements, provided properly drafted and entered into, can provide peace of mind by setting clear expectations and can help avoid costly, prolonged legal disputes if separation was to occur.

While not yet fully legally binding, these agreements outline each party’s intentions regarding the division of assets if the relationship breaks down and if they have been properly entered into, and regularly reviewed, the Courts generally need a compelling reason to override such an agreement which is why it is very important that they are entered into properly, with sufficient time and consideration of needs and fairness at the forefront.

Disclaimer: Please note that this page is for guidance only and does not replace legal advice. It is correct with the law at the time of publication but please be aware that laws may change over time. This article contains general legal information but should not be relied upon as legal advice. Please seek professional legal advice about your specific situation – contact us for dedicated help for you.