UK Supreme Court Clarifies Property Division in Divorce: What Standish v Standish Means for HNW Individuals

The Supreme Court today handed down its long-awaited decision in Standish v Standish, a landmark case concerning the treatment of intra-marital transfers in divorce — and it has brought with it welcome clarity.

At the heart of the case was whether a £77 million transfer from husband to wife, made as part of an inheritance tax mitigation strategy, should be considered a matrimonial asset and therefore subject to the sharing principle.

In a unanimous ruling, the UK Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal’s decision that 75% of the assets transferred in 2017 were non-matrimonial and not subject to equal division.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

• Non-matrimonial property is not subject to the sharing principle. This is the first time the UK Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed this. While such property may still be accessed to meet needs or compensation, it is not to be shared equally by default.

“Non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle… The law is rendered clearer and more certain if one rejects the proposition that there can be sharing of non-matrimonial property.” — [para 49]

• A transfer between spouses is not enough to transform separate property into matrimonial property. The Court was clear: the intention behind the transfer — in this case, estate planning for children — and how the asset was treated over time is critical.

“There is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 Assets as shared between them.” — [para 61]

• Matrimonialisation requires mutual treatment of assets as joint over time. The Court endorsed the principle that for non-matrimonial property to become matrimonial, it must be treated by both parties as a shared asset over a sustained period.

“Matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared.” — [para 52]

Why This Matters for High-Net-Worth Individuals

This decision is being widely welcomed for its sensible and principled approach — particularly by those concerned with protecting wealth. But the case of Standish also serves as a stark reminder: when significant gifts or transfers are made during a marriage, clarity of intention is essential.

Whether acting for the wealth-holder or the recipient, the implications are the same:

• Spouses and civil partners should be absolutely clear on whether a transfer is intended to be shared.
• The status of any intra-marital gift must be properly recorded and supported with legal advice.
• Those ‘gifting’ wealth must understand that if an asset is not ringfenced, used jointly, or treated as part of shared wealth over time, it may become matrimonial property.

Practical Steps for Clients

For those with substantial personal or family wealth, this case underscores the need to:

• Enter into pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreements that clearly define the nature and purpose of wealth and gifts.
• Take specialist succession and tax planning advice when making intra-marital transfers.
• Keep comprehensive records and correspondence to evidence the intention behind any transfer.

Ros Bever, Managing Partner of Irwin Mitchell’s Private Client Group and family law expert commented today:

“This is an excellent and entirely sensible judgment. The Supreme Court has delivered welcome clarity on the treatment of non-matrimonial property. It’s a decisive outcome for those focused on wealth preservation.”

The judgment in Standish brings welcome clarity and finality for family lawyers and their clients on how transfers during a marriage are treated. It is a timely reminder that those seeking to protect significant wealth should take specialist legal advice – for example, through carefully drafted pre and post nuptial agreements - to ensure their intentions are properly documented and upheld. 

Standish (Appellant) v Standish (Respondent) - UK Supreme Court