The Supreme Court’s judgment in Standish v Standish marks a pivotal moment for how English Courts approach financial disputes on divorce, particularly in high-value cases.
The case involved a £78 million transfer of assets from husband to wife before divorce, seemingly for tax planning purposes.
The Court confirmed that such transfers do not automatically become shared matrimonial property, unless there is clear evidence the parties treated them as joint assets during the marriage.
While the law has recognised the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property for some time, how that plays out in real cases, particularly where assets have been transferred between spouses, has often created grey areas.
As Head of the Family & Relationship Team at Mackrell LLP, I’ve seen this uncertainty cause confusion, not just in Court but for clients trying to understand what they can reasonably expect in terms of outcome.
It’s not unusual for one spouse to assume that moving an asset into joint names or between accounts means it’s now shared, even if the intention behind the move was purely administrative or tax-driven.
By drawing a firmer line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, the Court has clarified that the sharing principle, in which assets are divided equally, applies only to assets that are truly the product of the marital partnership. Sharing is of course, always subject to the needs of the parties being met but that has been long settled law.
Just because something is transferred during the marriage, doesn’t mean it’s shared in the legal sense.
That distinction matters hugely when tens or even hundreds of millions are at stake, but it’s equally relevant in more modest cases where pre-marital assets form the foundation of a couple’s financial life.
Examples of assets that could be considered the product of the marital partnership include:
- Income earned by either spouse during the marriage
- Savings accumulated or investments made jointly from that income
- Property purchased or improved using marital funds
- Businesses built or grown during the marriage through the efforts of one or both spouses
- Benefits or pensions accrued during the course of the marriage
For practitioners and divorcing couples alike, the message of this ruling is clear:
First, wealth acquired before the marriage, or by inheritance or gift, will not be subject to sharing simply because it was transferred during the marriage.
Second, Courts will look carefully at the intention behind asset transfers, particularly whether there is any genuine indication that the couple treated those assets as joint.
We anticipate this judgment will be heavily relied upon in future cases, particularly those involving complex inter-spousal transfers, family businesses, trusts, and international tax planning.
The Standish v Standish case highlights the importance of clear advice, early planning and careful documentation of asset treatment within the marriage.
At Mackrell LLP, our Family & Relationship Team specialises in helping clients understand their rights and options clearly.
If you’re facing questions about what counts as shared property or how to protect your interests, please contact 0207 420 4193 or email alison.green@mackrell.com.
