This blog post has been contributed by Professor Robert Jago, Module Convenor for Family law.
The recent case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 arose from a divorce dispute involving the division of a range of substantial financial assets. A so-called ‘big money case’. The case concerned generally how section 25 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 should be applied by the courts when exercising its powers to make financial orders after a divorce. Specifically, the case distinguished between marital and non-marital property and goes some way to explaining the extent to which non-marital assets should be subjected to the sharing principle.
In the case Mr Standish, who was a successful entrepreneur, had acquired considerable wealth before the marriage. During the marriage, some of these assets were used to support the family, while others were kept separate. Mrs Standish argued that a significant portion of these assets had become “matrimonialised” through their use during the marriage and should therefore be divided equally according to the sharing principle. Mr Standish, on the other hand, argued that these assets should remain his sole property as they were generated before the marriage and were never intended for sharing. The High Court initially ruled in favour of Mrs Standish, awarding her a substantial share of the assets. However, this amount was later reduced by the Court of Appeal, which applied a stricter interpretation of the sharing principle. Mrs Standish subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a reconsideration of the approach to these non-matrimonial assets.
At the Supreme Court Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens delivered a joint judgment which was agreed by the rest of the Justices of the Court and clarified the legal framework for distinguishing between marital and non-marital property. The Court reaffirmed that assets acquired before the marriage or received as gifts or inheritance during the marriage are generally classified as non-matrimonial. These assets are not subject to the sharing principle unless they are “matrimonialised.” The Court provided guidance on when non-matrimonial assets become matrimonial for this purpose. It ruled that such assets could only be considered matrimonial if they were deliberately treated as shared by both parties during the marriage. For example, if non-matrimonial funds were used to purchase a family home or fund joint investments, they might lose their non-matrimonial status. The Supreme Court went on to emphasise the importance of proportionality in financial settlements. The Court noted that the sharing principle should not automatically apply to all assets, particularly when it would lead to an unfair outcome for the party who brought substantial non-matrimonial property into the marriage. The judgment also considered the contributions of each spouse to the marriage, both financial and non-financial. While the wife had made significant contributions as a homemaker and caregiver, the Court ruled that this did not automatically entitle her to an equal share of the husband’s pre-marital wealth. As a result of these findings, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision to reduce the wife’s award.
The decision is important for family lawyers (and students!) because it provides further clarity on the application of the sharing principle to non-matrimonial property. It establishes that non-matrimonial assets are not automatically subject to division unless they have been intentionally integrated into the marital economy. This should therefore lead to greater predictability in financial settlements and reduce the scope for disputes over pre-marital wealth. The ruling is particularly significant for individuals entering into marriage with substantial pre-existing assets. It underscores the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. Individuals seeking to protect their pre-marital wealth may now feel more confident about the legal safeguards available to them. The judgment also indirectly highlights the value of premarital agreements in avoiding disputes over asset division. By clearly outlining the treatment of non-matrimonial property in advance, couples can prevent costly and protracted litigation in the event of divorce.
These points aside it is important to note that while the Supreme Court did not award an equal share to Mrs Standish, it did reinforce its support for the ‘needs’ principle, the ‘compensation’ principle, the ‘sharing principle’ and the ‘non-discrimination’ principle. Each of these principles have supported the operation of the section 25 framework in recent years and the Court reviewed the key case law to demonstrate this. It is also interesting, but not unsurprising, that the Court focused on the parties’ intentions throughout. The Court noted that although transfers between spouses for tax planning purposes were commonplace they did not necessarily result in “’matrimonialisation’” because the “intention is simply to save tax.” [para 62].
The Law Commission is currently waiting to hear whether the Government, in response to the Commission’s scoping report published in 2024, has decided that the law in this area requires reform and what shape that reform might take. Whilst it waits it would be useful to remember that as welcome as the clarification from the decision in Standish v Standish is, it is likely to be more complicated to assess “matrimonlisation” in cases which are not ‘big money cases’. In addition, in the most recent edition of Bromley’s Family Law (Oxford University Press, 2021) the authors observe much has been made of the ‘meal ticket for life’ narrative in these cases and yet:
“…even today, assets tend to be concentrated in the hands, and obtainable through the earning power, of men rather than women; as we have seen. The courts find it difficult to conceive of a ‘stellar’ contribution made in a non-financial way.” (page 349)
This decision does not help that particular cause but arguably it shouldn’t be the case that Mr Standish should have to provide a disproportionate settlement to compensate for the structural inequalities that Mrs Standish may have inevitably faced. Twenty-five years ago, Lord Nicholls famously stated in White v White [2000] UKHL 54 that “fairness, like beauty, lies in eyes of the beholder.” [para 1]. The definition of “matrimonialisation” in legal terms, as well as its overall fairness, will likely be a topic of extensive discussion in the future. That will be the legacy of the Standish Saga.
yes i agree to the fact of matrimonial asset belongs to both husband and wife. But what of during a marriage that is already dwindling down, in all the developments projects your wife will always withdraw herself, example you buy a plot of land you suggested for both names be included in the land document the wife says delete my name am not interested and after divorce . What is the position of the principle of sharing that land. you asked her to open a joint account she initially agreed but later on she said here is the money you gave me to open the joint account am not interested. what is the position of the law of sharing the finance