Background:

Clive Standish is a retired banker and former UBS CFO. Clive had significant wealth, of an estimated £57 million in 2004, before marrying his wife, Anna Standish in 2005.

In 2017 Clive transferred his wife, Anna, approximately £77.8 million as part of Inheritance Tax planning. Clive had an expectation that Anna would set up this money in trusts for the children, however, she never did.

High Court (2022):

The case first appeared in the High Court in 2022, within financial remedy proceedings, when the Judge ruled that the assets in Anna’s sole name had become part of the “matrimonial property” and were therefore subject to the sharing principle. Clive therefore received approximately 60% of such funds and Anna was awarded £45 million.

Court of Appeal (2024):

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the High Court in 2024, stating that merely transferring the assets did not make them matrimonial. The Judge, during the appeal stated that the funds had derived from pre-matrimonial effort and tax planning. They ruled therefore that 75% of the assets remained non-matrimonial, with 25% as matrimonial wealth. Wife, Anna’s award then reduced to £25 million.

Supreme Court (2 July 2025):

Anna then made a further appeal to the Supreme Court, heard on 2 July 2025. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, dismissing Anna’s claims. They confirmed that the facts of this case were correct to see Anna receive an award of £25 million.

Whilst confirming the finality of the case, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to confirm some key issues in relation to matrimonial property.

Key Issues:

The Sharing Principle – This applies to matrimonial property. Matrimonial property reflects the marriage partnership. The ownership of an asset at the time of a divorce is not determinative. The Supreme Court held that the sharing of matrimonial property should normally be on an equal basis and although there can be justified departures from that, equal sharing is the starting point.

Non-Matrimonial Wealth – The Supreme Court agreed that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property. This finding will end speculation in earlier cases that it was possible to share non-matrimonial property. The Supreme Court has made it clear now that any access or claims for non-matrimonial property are limited to being based on ‘need’ and ‘compensation’. There is no longer a legal right to share property found to be non-matrimonial.

Matrimonialisation – The Supreme Court ruled that when considering property and whether it has matrimonialised, the court should consider how the parties have dealt with those assets. For example, have they been treated as shared?

The Supreme Court set out a new test for matrimonalisation, being, it occurs where there is an intention by the contributor to share non-matrimonial property, coupled with treatment by the parties of this non-matrimonial property as shared over time.

The time passed is therefore relevant to determining a settled intention that an asset is treated as shared. The Supreme Court held that merely transferring the funds for tax mitigation is not an intention to share with a spouse.

Conclusion:

Standish v Standish marks a moment in English family law, providing much-needed clarity on pre-marital assets. It encourages those seeking to shield their wealth, even in marriage and emphasises the need for clear intent and formal agreements in marriage. It may have also increased an interest in pre or post nuptial agreements to avoid costly legal battles.

The Supreme Court reinforced protections around pre-marital wealth and have likely set a precedent for future cases.

Contact our Family Team for specialist legal advice today on 01226 210000.