Case Summary: Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26
Introduction
Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 is a significant Supreme Court decision addressing the application of the sharing principle to assets acquired before marriage and later transferred between spouses. The case raised pressing questions about the concept of ‘matrimonialisation’, that is, whether and when non-matrimonial property becomes subject to division where the marriage breaks down. While practitioners had hoped the judgment would bring much-needed clarity to this area, the court's fact-sensitive approach ultimately reaffirmed existing principles without offering much clarifying guidance. As a result, uncertainty remains as to how matrimonialisation should be established.
Background
The parties had married in 2005 and separated in 2020. Mr Standish transferred assets worth £77.8 million to Mrs Standish in 2017 (the 2017 assets) with the stated intention that she would create trusts for the benefit of their children. She did not do so. Upon divorce, she claimed the assets were hers absolutely or at least had become matrimonial property subject to the sharing principle. The first instance court agreed and awarded her £45 million.
Appeal
The Court of Appeal overturned that award, reducing it to £25 million, finding that only 25% of the 2017 assets were matrimonial, and the remaining 75% retained their non-matrimonial character. Mrs Standish appealed this decision.
The issues before the Supreme Court were as follows:
Whether the 2017 assets transferred by Mr Standish to Mrs Standish became matrimonial property through the process of "matrimonialisation."
Whether the purpose and conduct surrounding the transfer altered the assets’ character.
The correct application of the sharing principle where assets originate as non-matrimonial but are later transferred between spouses.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal. The court upheld the court of Appeal's approach, concluding that the bulk of the 2017 assets retained their non-matrimonial character and were therefore not subject to the equal sharing principle.
Takeaways
The findings in this case are as follows:
The sharing principle is limited to matrimonial property. Citing Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24, at [34], [48], and [52] of the judgment, the court reaffirmed that the equal sharing principle only applies to assets generated during the marriage through joint effort, typically via income and family enterprise. Transfers between spouses do not automatically recharacterise assets as matrimonial. The court emphasised that a transfer of legal title, even if to a spouse, does not, in and of itself, transform non-matrimonial property into matrimonial property. The legal ownership is not the decisive factor.
The concept of matrimonialisation requires clear intention or conduct to treat the property as joint. Lord Stephens noted that while the term “matrimonialisation” is sometimes used in lower courts, it must be cautiously applied. The key question is whether the parties, through their conduct, treated the asset as a shared matrimonial resource over time. This was not the case here.
The 2017 transfer was made solely for tax purposes, not as a gift or in furtherance of joint financial planning. The Court observed that the wife had agreed to set up trusts for the benefit of the children, further undermining any claim that the property was intended for her personal use or joint benefit.
The court rejected the argument that the husband's passive approach to the assets post-transfer suggested equal ownership. The fact that the assets remained untouched for the intended purpose did not support a finding of shared ownership.
This judgment confirms that the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property and that transfers between spouses, even of significant value, do not automatically amount to matrimonialisation. However, the judgment offers little clarity on when and how non-matrimonial assets might be treated as shared. The door has been left open for future litigation to hinge on narrative evidence and intention.
Written by Senior Consultant Barrister, Lisa Edmunds.
Law is correct as of 29th July 2025. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.
