'Yours’ vs ‘ours’: Supreme Court ruling redefines equal sharing in divorce

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in the long-standing Standish v Standish ([2025] UKSC 26) case has delivered a landmark ruling on the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in divorce.

Delivered on 2^nd July 2025, the ruling carries major implications for how high-value estates are treated during financial settlements, especially where assets have previously been transferred for tax planning purposes.

Standish v Standish: a brief summary

The Standish divorce dispute centred on Clive and Julie Standish, a wealthy couple with two children who divorced after a 15-year marriage.

Mr Standish, a former UBS banker, transferred approximately £77m–£80m to his wife’s name in 2017 in order for his children to benefit from her non-domiciled status for Inheritance Tax (IHT) planning purposes.

However, the couple separated shortly afterwards, before any Trust arrangements could be formally established – and during divorce proceedings, Mrs Standish claimed an equal share of the entire estate, including the funds transferred to her name.

Initially, the High Court awarded her £45m before a Court of Appeal decision reduced this to £25m. Representing a 45% reduction – the largest reduction in a divorce award to date in the UK – the ruling declared the transferred funds were mostly non-matrimonial in nature, and therefore were not subject to the standard equal sharing principle.

Mrs Standish appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the transfers constituted a gift and were thus subject to equal division upon divorce.

The Supreme Court’s verdict

On 2nd July 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal for a larger share of the funds, upholding the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

This decision was based on several legal findings:

Non-matrimonial property remains distinct

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the sharing principle in divorce should only be strictly applied to matrimonial property – i.e. assets acquired through joint efforts during the course of the marriage.

Non-matrimonial assets, including property purchased by one party prior to the marriage, as well as inheritances or gifts, therefore remain outside the scope of equal division unless they have been purposefully (and consentingly) ‘matrimonialised’ by the original owner.

Intention and treatment of the assets matter

The justices found no evidence that Mr Standish intended to give the transferred assets to his wife as a personal gift or to make them part of the couple’s joint estate. Crucially, the transfers were made solely for tax efficiency and were intended to benefit their children over the long term.

Merely holding assets in a spouse’s name, the Court said, is not enough to classify them as matrimonial. In other words, the recipient must also use and treat the property in a way that evidences shared ownership or integration into the couple’s finances.

Equal sharing only covers marital partnership

The Court reinforced that the equal sharing principle only comes into play when the property has been acquired through the joint economic efforts of the couple.

In this case, the source of the transferred funds was a pre-existing family Trust connected to Mr Standish – and so were clearly not a product of collaborative marital endeavour.

What does the verdict mean for you?

Though the Standish v Standish case covered a very specific high-net-worth divorce dispute, the Supreme Court’s ruling on asset division is expected to have far-reaching consequences for Family Law, tax planning and general asset protection going forward:

• Estate and tax planning transfers are not automatically shareable – wealth transferred for Inheritance Tax planning or asset structuring purposes, especially in high-net-worth families, will not be subject to the sharing principle unless there’s clear evidence of intent to benefit both spouses equally from the outset
• Legal title isn’t everything – despite common misconceptions, ownership on paper (i.e. whose name the asset is in) doesn’t actually dictate whether or not it’s matrimonial. This means it’s critical to document the intentions behind any asset transfers to avoid misclassification and disputes during potential future divorce proceedings
• Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements gain importance – this latest judgment underscores the value of creating formal agreements that clarify the character of property throughout the marriage. This is especially key for those entering marriage with significant personal or family wealth, where robust nuptial agreements can clearly delineate ownership and offer peace of mind
• Asset tracing and documentation is critical – in the event of separation, legal representatives must be prepared to trace the source of wealth and demonstrate how it was treated throughout the relationship. Evidence of separate use, individual benefit or intention to maintain sole ownership will be key to preserving non-matrimonial status during settlements

How we can help

If you’re concerned about how this major case might affect your wealth planning, inheritance or asset protection strategies, our expert Wealth Protection and Family Law teams are here to help.

Whether you’re planning on getting married, going through a separation or simply need to review your current plans in light of the latest guidance, our friendly and experienced solicitors can advise on structuring transfers, reviewing existing arrangements and preparing effective prenuptial or postnuptial agreements to safeguard your interests.

Get in touch with our dedicated professionals on 03333 058375, or by email via family@psg-law.co.uk, for personalised guidance on securing your future.