Dr Sara Hunton discusses Standish v Standish in which the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s largest ever reduction of a divorce award.
Previously, the Court of Appeal had reduced the wife’s award from £45 million to £25 million finding that some of the husband’s assets should not have been treated as ‘matrimonial’. (A significant proportion of his wealth was acquired before the marriage).
Applying the ‘sharing principle’ on divorce
When considering how to divide the assets of a divorcing couple, the courts of England and Wales have for many years adopted the ‘sharing principle’.
This principle can be challenged if some of those assets can be classed as non-marital. Perhaps a spouse argues they had generated the assets before the marriage or received an inheritance or a personal gift.
By contrast, marital assets are earned or acquired during the marriage as a result of the spouses’ joint efforts and because of their partnership: the ‘fruits of the marriage partnership’.
Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26
In the case of Standish v Standish, the Supreme Court yesterday unanimously set out 5 principles to be considered by the courts when applying the sharing principle to the parties’ assets.
- Marital property and non-marital property can be separated.
- The sharing principle should only apply to marital property. The Supreme Court also noted that claims requiring the consideration of needs or compensation principles may require sharing of non-marital assets, although those issues did not feature in the Standish
- The court should start from the point that marital property be shared equally.
- A non-marital asset may be subject to ‘matrimonialisation’ - converting that asset to marital property which then becomes subject to the sharing principle. This transformation occurs when the parties have treated the non-marital asset as being shared and their intention to share can be evidenced.
- If an asset is transferred from one party to the other to save tax, regardless of the passage of time, then matrimonialisation does not usually occur.
What are the wider implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish?
Standish is a ‘big money’ case concerning assets of around £80 million. However, the Supreme Court’s clearly set out decision will be helpful to those of more meagre means who seek to include or exclude non-marital assets from the marital pot on divorce.
Of course, a prenuptial agreement can be used to define all non-marital assets openly and with clarity and thereby avoid costly litigation at a later date.
Read the judgment in full in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26