Standish v Standish: What the Supreme Court Decided About Pre-Marital Wealth

When one spouse gives the other a large asset during a marriage, does that asset become "matrimonial" and fall to be shared on divorce? In Standish v Standish, the Supreme Court gave an answer that matters to anyone advising on high-value divorces, pre-marital planning or estate planning. This article summarises the case and what it means in practice.

The background

Clive Standish, a former chief financial officer at UBS, and Anna Standish married in December 2005, having been together since 2003. They separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage.

The dispute centred on a large investment portfolio that Mr Standish had built up before the marriage. In 2017 those assets were put into Mrs Standish's name. They were never placed in a trust, and they were still in her name when she began divorce proceedings in April 2020.

Mrs Standish argued that the transfer changed the character of the assets. In her view they had moved from being her husband's non-matrimonial property to being hers, and so should be shared.

The High Court (December 2022)

Mr Justice Moor accepted that argument. He treated the transferred assets as matrimonial property subject to the sharing principle. Mrs Standish was awarded £45 million and Mr Standish £87.6 million.

The Court of Appeal (2024)

Mr Standish appealed, and Mrs Standish cross-appealed to seek more. In Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567, the Court of Appeal (Moylan, King and Phillips LJJ) dismissed her appeal and allowed his.

The court held that transferring the assets to Mrs Standish did not "matrimonialise" them. It found that 75% of the assets remained Mr Standish's non-matrimonial property, and that only 25% were matrimonial and subject to sharing. Mrs Standish's award was set at £25 million, which was half of the matrimonial portion.

That was a reduction of £20 million, or 45%, and was widely reported as the largest ever made by the Court of Appeal in a divorce award.

A key theme of the judgment was that the source of an asset matters more than whose name it is held in. Moylan LJ confirmed that matrimonialisation remains part of the law but should be applied with caution.

The Supreme Court (2 July 2025)

Mrs Standish was granted permission to appeal in October 2024, and the appeal was heard on 30 April and 1 May 2025. On 2 July 2025 the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed it. The court upheld the Court of Appeal's approach and confirmed her entitlement under the sharing principle at £25 million. It agreed that none of the non-matrimonial proportion of the assets had been matrimonialised.

Why it matters

Legal title is not decisive. Putting an asset into a spouse's sole name does not, on its own, turn it into matrimonial property. Courts will look at where the wealth came from.

Matrimonialisation is a narrow exception. Pre-marital and inherited wealth will not easily be drawn into the pot for sharing, even where it has been transferred between spouses.

Evidence and intention count. How and why assets were transferred, how they were held and how they were used during the marriage are likely to be central in future cases.

Planning is more important. The case underlines the value of specialist advice before and during a marriage. Couples who intend a transfer to change the nature of an asset should consider documenting that clearly, for example through a nuptial agreement.

Takeaways for clients

If you hold substantial wealth from before the marriage, a transfer to your spouse will not automatically make it shared property. If you receive assets from your spouse during the marriage, do not assume they will be treated as yours alone or as jointly owned. The analysis turns on their origin and how they were treated. Whichever side you are on, take advice early. The same facts can produce very different outcomes depending on how the arrangements were structured and recorded.  This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, so please take advice on your own circumstances.