The division of assets during divorce proceedings in England and Wales has long relied on the fundamental distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. While the starting point in many cases remains the equal sharing of assets acquired during marriage, the courts have historically recognised that certain categories of property may fall outside this principle—particularly wealth that originates outside the marital partnership, such as assets acquired before marriage or received by one party as a gift or inheritance.
In the case of Standish v Standish, a 2025 Supreme Court decision, the question arose whether assets transferred by one spouse to another during the marriage can be excluded from the matrimonial pot. This case is now the leading authority on how such transfers are treated in English divorce law.
Background to the case
Clive Standish, a wealthy former UBS banker, married Anna Standish in 2005. Prior to their marriage, Clive had amassed significant personal wealth—over £57 million in investments. During the marriage, he transferred roughly £77.8 million to Anna. The reason for this transfer was a tax planning strategy: Anna, as a non-domiciled individual, could hold the funds offshore and eventually place them in a trust for the benefit of their children.
Importantly, the funds were never used for their shared expenses, nor were they combined with jointly held wealth. The intended trust was never actually created, and the assets remained in Anna’s name when divorce proceedings commenced in 2020.
At first instance, the High Court treated the entire sum transferred to Anna as matrimonial. The judge found that because the assets were in her name at the time of divorce, and there was no formal separation of use or intention documented at the time of the transfer, they should be included in the total divisible estate. This resulted in a financial award of approximately £45 million to Anna, out of a total estate of around £132 million.
However, the Court of Appeal later took a different view. It recognised that the assets originated from Clive’s non-matrimonial wealth and had not been mixed into the marital pot or used to benefit Anna personally. The purpose of the transfer—to protect family wealth for the next generation through tax-efficient means—was not consistent with an intention to share the assets as part of the marriage. On that basis, the Court of Appeal concluded that most of the transferred assets should be treated as non-matrimonial, subject to some growth during the marriage. Anna’s award was adjusted accordingly, and reduced to £25 million.
The matter was ultimately brought before the Supreme Court, which issued its unanimous judgment in July 2025. The ruling clarified several key principles that will now guide future financial remedy cases.
Key legal principles for future cases
Most significantly, the Court held that the source of the asset remains the decisive factor in determining its character. The fact that an asset is legally transferred into a spouse’s name does not, on its own, convert it into matrimonial property. The court must consider the underlying purpose of the transfer and whether the asset was ever integrated into the couple’s shared finances or lifestyle. The Supreme Court found that Clive’s intention was to preserve wealth for his children, not to benefit Anna or their joint lives. Despite the legal title being in her name, the absence of joint use or benefit meant the assets retained their non-matrimonial character.
In this case, there was no evidence that the assets were used to fund their lifestyle, support joint investments, or pay for shared property or holidays. Nor were the assets ever mingled with joint funds. The Court found that simply holding the investments in Anna’s name, without more, was not enough to treat them as part of the marital pot. Accordingly, most of the transferred funds were excluded from the matrimonial estate, with only a small portion attributable to investment growth during the marriage considered for division.
This decision sends a clear message that the treatment of transferred assets hinges on context and intention. Not every inter-spousal transfer during marriage will count as a contribution to the partnership. Where the source of the asset is clearly non-matrimonial, and it is not used or treated in a way that integrates it into the couple’s shared life, it can retain its non-matrimonial status even after transfer.
In what circumstances will transferred assets be considered matrimonial?
There are circumstances where transferred assets will be considered matrimonial. If the receiving spouse uses the funds to buy or renovate the family home, to support the household financially, or to fund joint ventures or holidays, the courts are likely to view that as evidence of “matrimonialisation”. Similarly, where there is no clear separation of finances, and wealth is regularly pooled and spent jointly, even an initially non-matrimonial asset may be considered to have lost its separate identity over time.
On the other hand, if a spouse receives a gift or inheritance and keeps it in a separate account, untouched and uncommingled, the courts may treat it as non-matrimonial property even if it is held during the marriage. The principle is that the mere passage of time or legal transfer is insufficient to trigger sharing: the conduct and intentions surrounding the asset’s use are what matter most.
What does the case mean for the sharing principle?
The Standish case also highlights the limits of the sharing principle. While matrimonial assets are typically divided equally, non-matrimonial assets are excluded from this rule unless they are required to meet the financial needs of the other spouse. In Standish, Anna was already well provided for, and the Court found no justification for encroaching on the non-matrimonial portion of the estate to meet her reasonable needs.
The ruling gives much-needed clarity to a grey area of law, particularly in high-net-worth divorces where pre-marital wealth and inter-spousal transfers are common. Importantly, the case also underscores the need for careful documentation of financial planning intentions, especially where asset transfers are made for tax or succession purposes.
Ultimately, Standish v Standish confirms that assets transferred to a spouse during marriage can still be non-matrimonial—provided they are not treated as part of the marital partnership. The decision reinforces the principle that the court must look behind the formalities of ownership to the substance of the parties’ conduct and intentions. In doing so, it offers a fairer and more nuanced approach to wealth division at the end of a marriage, particularly where large sums are involved and where the original source of wealth lies outside the couple’s shared endeavours.