Standish v Standish is a massively talked about case amongst family lawyers and it could be said that it is one of the biggest cases that family law has seen for a very long time.
Mr and Mrs. Standish began their relationship in 2003 and they were married in 2005. They had three children each from previous relationships and went on to have two children together. Their marriage ended in 2020.
There were assets totalling £132 million in this case. Mr. Justice Moor determined that £112 million of the total was matrimonial property (an important determination for the future of the case) and £20 million was considered by him to be non-matrimonial. Within the sum of £112 million there were investments totalling £80 million which Mr. Standish had transferred from his sole name into the sole name of Mrs. Standish in 2017 (3 years prior to separation) and a farming business valued at £8.6 million in which Mrs. Standish had been given shares in. The transfers to Mrs. Standish were part of a tax planning scheme with the intention of them being held on trust for their children. However, at the time of separation, they were still held by Mrs. Standish. The Judge determined that an unequal division of the £112 million of matrimonial assets was justified because the £80 million that was transferred and the shares in the farming business were pre-marital assets in the sole name of Mr. Standish and had only been “matrimonialised” i.e., brought into the matrimonial pot towards the end of the marriage. Mr. Justice Moor awarded Mrs. Standish 40% of the matrimonial property leaving her with 34% of the parties’ total wealth. Mr. Standish received 66% of the parties’ total wealth.
After this Judgment, Mrs. Standish appealed and Mr. Standish cross-appealed making headlines and a new discussion point amongst family lawyers.
Mrs. Standish was saying that the Judge was wrong to decide that matrimonialisation had happened in 2017 and that the assets transferred to Mrs. Standish should have been treated as her separate property. Her case was that the effect of one spouse transferring an asset into the legal and beneficial ownership of the other spouse is to transform that property into the other spouse’s separate property and would then not be subject to the sharing principle. She was also saying that the Judge should have treated what he classed to be a non-matrimonial asset (a farm in Australia) to be a matrimonial asset because although it was owned by Mr. Standish prior to marriage, the parties went on holidays there and it had been improved and added to during the marriage.
Mr. Standish was saying that the Judge should not have applied the sharing principle to the assets transferred into the sole name of Mrs. Standish because they were not matrimonial property and that they represented his pre-marital wealth both before and after transfer. He argued that title is not a significant factor because it does not reflect whether an asset is or is not the product of the parties’ joint endeavours. Mr. Standish took the view that the focus of the Court should be on the substance of their contributions which did not always mean that there would be a clear dividing line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property because of the extent to which this was possible or necessary to achieve fairness would depend on the facts of the case. There was an argument from his legal team that it could be possible to dispense from the concept of “matrimonialisation” or at least applying it more cautiously and being more conservative with it. Even if there had been some matrimonialisation of an asset, their argument was that it did not mean that it should then be divided equally.
Mr. Standish stood firm in his position that the transfer in 2017 did not, in his argument, convert his wealth into matrimonial assets and importantly, did not change the source of his wealth. He said that the 2017 assets had not been mixed with matrimonial property and that there was no evidence to suggest that he accepted that the assets should be treated as matrimonial property.
Appeal
At appeal, Lord Justice Moylan gave the lead Judgment with the other two Judges agreeing. He made it clear that the issue at the heart of the appeal was the classification of property for the purposes of applying the sharing principle – how and when does property change from being non-matrimonial property (where the sharing principle does not apply) to matrimonial property (where the sharing principle does apply).
Lord Justice Moylan went on to determine that a fair outcome would provide Mrs. Standish with approximately £25 million which was a lot less (45% less) than she was initially awarded, leaving Mr. Standish with £107 million. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by Mrs. Standish and allowed the appeal brought by Mr. Standish. There did however remain a difficulty as the Judge did not undertake a needs assessment and the matter was remitted for determination by application of the needs principle.
The Court of Appeal therefore determined that the source of the asset is the critical factor and not the title – to base an award on title would be “discriminatory” and “undermine the sharing principle.” However, in addition to this, the Court made clear that fairness may justify or require the Court to treat property, which was not purely the product of the parties’ joint endeavours, as matrimonial property and therefore, fall within the scope of the sharing principle. The concept of matrimonialisation should be applied narrowly whilst also reflecting that the importance of the non-marital source may diminish over time.
Supreme Court
Then came the long-awaited Judgment in May 2025 for family lawyers. After the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court Judge’s decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissed Mr. Standish’s appeal. The Supreme Court found that the proper application of the sharing principle to the facts of the case meant that Mrs. Standish’s award was £25 million.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property and provided new guidance in relation to when non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial and therefore subject to the sharing principle.
What matters is how parties have dealt with non-marital assets and whether this shows that, over time, they have treated the assets as being shared. The new test is that matrimonialisation occurs when there is an intention by the contributor to share non-marital property, coupled with treatment by the parties of non-marital property as being shared over time. The question is whether the transformation has occurred. Non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle, although it can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation.
What does it mean for you?
So, what does it mean for you? Whilst Standish limits the sharing of non-marital assets, it does not prevent the Court from using non-marital assets to meet needs. Fairness remains a guiding principle and outcomes will turn on the specific facts of the case. That is why it is so important to obtain legal advice from the outset. With pre-nuptial agreements growing more and more common, as clients, you will need to take early advice, keep non-matrimonial assets separate and clearly record intentions. There is a lot to think about which is why it is so important to seek legal advice from the outset.
T: 029 2034 2233
E: [email protected]
Author: Fay Jones
Published: 24.07.25