Standish -v- Standish: Will the Supreme Court Redefine Matrimonial vs Non-Matrimonial Assets?
- Duncan Ranton
- Jun 18, 2025
- 4 min read
The Supreme Court case of Standish -v- Standish, heard on 30 April and 1 May 2025, has drawn significant attention - not just from family law professionals, but also from wealth advisers and high net worth (HNW) individuals. At the heart of this case is a fundamental and hotly debated question in financial remedy proceedings: to what extent can non-marital property become “matrimonialised” during a marriage?
At the time of writing, the judgment is still awaited. However, its outcome is expected to shape the future treatment of matrimonial versus non-matrimonial property in divorce, particularly for HNW couples. It could also impact the way family lawyers, estate planners, and wealth management professionals advise their clients on pre-marital asset protection and nuptial agreements.
Matrimonial versus Non-matrimonial Property: What’s the Difference?
In many marriages, one or both spouses enter the marriage with significant pre-acquired wealth. During the marriage, more assets may be accumulated; sometimes jointly, sometimes separately. When the marriage ends, disputes often arise about which assets form the “matrimonial pot” to be shared.
What Is matrimonial property?
Matrimonial property includes:
assets acquired during the marriage
property, investments, savings, or business interests used for family benefit
wealth accumulated through joint effort - even if held in one person’s name
Courts apply the sharing principle to matrimonial property, meaning that those assets are usually divided equally, unless a different distribution is needed to meet a parties' reasonable income and capital needs.
What Is non-matrimonial property?
Non-matrimonial property may comprise:
assets owned before the marriage
certain inheritances or gifts received during the marriage
wealth generated after separation
These assets can remain outside of the application of the sharing principle, unless the court determines they have been “matrimonialised” – the key question in Standish.
Standish: The Case in Focus
Mr and Mrs Standish married in 2005 and had two children. Mrs Standish remained at home to care for the children, while Mr Standish continued his successful financial services career. Mr Standish’s considerable pre-marital wealth grew significantly during the marriage.
The 2017 transfer
In 2017, Mr Standish transferred approximately £77 million (around US$104 million) to his wife. While this was part of a tax planning strategy and intended for their children’s benefit, the funds remained in her sole name and had appreciated to around £80 million by the time of their separation in 2020.
The High Court decision: ARQ -v- YAQ [2022] EWFC 128
Mr Justice Moor decided that the transfer effectively matrimonialised the assets, despite the origin of the underlying capital. He ordered a 60 / 40 split in favour of the husband, with Mrs Standish receiving £45 million.
Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision, ruling the assets had retained their non-matrimonial character, as they were generated pre-marriage and the 2017 transfer didn’t indicate an intention to share them post-separation. The wife’s award was reduced to £25 million.
The Supreme Court hearing
The Supreme Court has now heard the appeal, and its judgment is expected to clarify the legal test for when (and how) non-marital property becomes matrimonial - a long-standing point of argument in financial remedy disputes.
What Could Happen Next?
If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal
A decision confirming the contentious assets as non-matrimonial will give greater certainty to individuals entering marriage with significant wealth. It will also underscore the importance of careful estate and tax planning, including how any intention to share assets is recorded.
Advisors will need to guide clients on making intentions clear, particularly when transferring wealth during a marriage.
If the Supreme Court reverses the Court of Appeal
If the assets are deemed matrimonial property, the court may shift its focus from the source of the asset to the intended use or benefit. This could:
trigger an increased demand for nuptial agreements
require more robust planning from family law and wealth professionals
encourage clear documentation of asset transfers and usage expectations
In either scenario, it is hoped the Supreme Court will provide much needed guidance on what constitutes the transformation of non-marital property into matrimonial assets.
Key Takeaways for Wealth Advisers and Family Lawyers
1. Pre-marital wealth should not be assumed to be protected
Without a clear agreement or careful financial planning, even historic wealth could be subject to the sharing principle.
2. Nuptial agreements will likely become more critical
While not strictly binding, they can influence outcomes and in some cases be decisive - especially when both parties have taken legal advice and made full disclosure.
3. Transfers during marriage should be clearly documented
Spouses need to understand that the way assets are handled and described can affect their legal status if the marriage breaks down. The nature and purposes of any transfers of wealth between spouses needs to be carefully recorded, to avoid the unintended matrimonialisation of non-marital assets
Final thought: why Standish -v- Standish matters
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Standish -v- Standish could reshape how we define and divide wealth on divorce in England and Wales. It may finally clarify the grey area surrounding matrimonialisation of assets - an issue that has long been a point of contention especially in HNW financial remedy proceedings.
Comments