Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26
Court Clarifies Treatment of Pre-Marital Gifts.
Introduction
In a landmark decision that reshapes how courts handle wealth on divorce, the UK Supreme Court in Standish v Standish has clarified the boundaries between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.
The ruling is now the leading authority on how pre-marital gifts and inheritances should be treated in financial proceedings, with significant implications for divorcing couples, family businesses, and anyone engaged in nuptial financial planning.
Background to the Case
The dispute arose from a high-value divorce involving substantial family wealth. Before the parties’ separation, the husband had transferred assets worth approximately £77–80 million to his wife as part of a tax-planning scheme designed to benefit their children (the “2017 Assets”).
At first instance, the trial judge treated most of these assets as matrimonial property, finding that the long marriage and the parties’ intertwined finances justified inclusion of the gifts within the marital “pot.” The Court of Appeal agreed.
The Supreme Court did not.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal, holding that only 25 percent of the 2017 Assets had been “matrimonialised.” The remaining 75 percent retained their non-matrimonial character and were not subject to equal division.
The judgment confirms that assets originating from gifts or inheritances remain non-matrimonial unless clear evidence shows they have been treated as joint property. The Court restated five key principles:
- There is a conceptual distinction between matrimonial property (the fruits of the marital partnership) and non-matrimonial property (assets acquired before marriage or through gift or inheritance).
- The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property.
- The starting point remains equality of division for matrimonial assets, though departures may be justified by need or fairness.
- Non-matrimonial assets can become matrimonial only if, over time, the parties treat them as shared — for example, by mingling them in joint accounts or using them to fund the family’s lifestyle.
- A transfer made for tax or estate-planning reasons does not, on its own, convert a non-matrimonial asset into matrimonial property.
In Standish, the husband’s gifted assets were largely kept separate from the couple’s day-to-day finances, and the Court found no evidence that they had been used as joint funds.
Why Standish v Standish Matters
This decision re-balances the treatment of wealth on divorce and underscores that origin matters more than title. Courts will look to the source and use of the asset rather than simply whose name appears on it.
For individuals with family wealth, inherited property, or pre-marital assets, the case provides welcome clarity — and a reminder that careful structuring and documentation remain crucial.
Practical Implications for Clients
Asset ring-fencing
Keep gifted or inherited property separate from jointly used funds or assets. Once mingled, it may lose its protected status.
Clear financial records
Maintain evidence showing the source, purpose, and handling of significant assets throughout the marriage.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements
Formal agreements remain one of the most effective tools for protecting non-matrimonial property and managing expectations between spouses.
Tax-planning transfers
Moving assets between spouses for tax purposes does not necessarily convert them into matrimonial property, but clear documentation of intent is essential.
Practitioner Takeaways
The Standish ruling gives family lawyers a stronger framework for advising high-net-worth and business-owner clients.
- Identify and trace the origin of each significant asset — whether pre-marital, gifted, or inherited.
- Examine the timing and purpose of any transfer between spouses.
- Assess how the asset was treated during the marriage — was it used jointly, or kept separate?
- Analyse whether any transfers were made solely for tax efficiency or for the family’s collective benefit.
- Ensure any nuptial agreement or trust clearly addresses the risk of “matrimonialisation.”
Conclusion
Standish v Standish re-establishes the dividing line between shared marital wealth and separate personal assets. The Supreme Court’s message is clear: not every asset acquired during marriage is up for equal division.
For clients, the decision reinforces the importance of forward planning, transparency, and careful record-keeping. For practitioners, it provides a refreshed roadmap for advising on asset protection, nuptial agreements, and the treatment of family wealth on divorce.
By: Emmanuel Ogbu
22/10/2025