The UK Supreme Court made a historic decision in Standish v. Standish this week (2 July 2025). It ruled that an multi million asset transfer from ex-banker Clive Standish to his ex-wife Anna is not marital property. This decision makes it much clearer how courts split and define wealth in divorce disputes.
The case
In 2017, Clive Standish, who used to be the CFO at UBS, sent Anna about £77.8 million. The money was meant to go into offshore trusts to benefit their two children and avoid UK inheritance tax because Anna is not a UK citizen. But when the marriage ended in 2020, the money was still just in Anna’s name, which led to a lot of legal trouble.
In 2022, High Court Judge gave Anna £45 million from the couple’s £132 million inheritance, saying that the assets that had been moved were part of the marriage. But the Court of Appeal changed that award to £25 million, saying that most of the money was earned before the marriage and that the transfer did not make it shared property.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court agreed with the £25 million award decision. The idea of “matrimonialisation” was at the heart of the decision. This means that property that is not part of a marriage (such gifts, inheritance, or assets that were owned before the marriage) might become part of the marriage only if it is considered to be so by the couple. The Supreme Court decided that the Standishes never thought of the £77.8 million as family property. They clearly kept it separate for their kids and for tax reasons.
Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens said that just moving money between spouses for tax planning doesn’t mean they are sharing it, unless they utilise it as a family or are both involved in finances.
What this means in real life
The decision gives clear direction for divorce lawyers and their clients. Non-marital property is to be ringfenced and excluded from the marital pot unless it is obviously shared or to the extent that it is necessary to meet needs. Gifts, inheritances, or wealth that you had before you got married will not be divided by the court unless they were/are used by the couple in the marriage or to the extent that it is necessary to meet needs.
Intent and use will be looked at. How were these assets used, were they kept for personal or shared use? In Standish v Standish this was very clear.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are going to be become ever more important. These kinds of agreements can be called upon to establish limits on how assets might be shared and a couples intentions.
Dividing wealth has always been a difficult conversation for divorcing couples. Standish v. Standish clears up some of this by setting a precedent that having an asset in both names doesn’t mean it’s marital. However without significant changes to the law, each case will still need specialist legal advice to unpick the mix of facts and intentions.
Need some advice? Get in touch today
"*" indicates required fields
The information submitted here is used and stored for the purpose of replying to the enquiry. For more information on how we process data please visit our Privacy Policy.
