Standish v Standish [2025] – application of the sharing principle and non-matrimonial assets

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court published their judgement on Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 which provides clarification on the approach the family courts should take when applying the sharing principle in cases dealing with matrimonial finances on separation. 

Background and Procedural History

The case involved parties to a long marriage who had made an application to the family court to determine how their financial assets should be divided after divorce. The husband had acquired very considerable wealth, making this a ‘big money case’. 

The issue requiring determination in the case was the husband’s transfer of investment funds, worth approximately £80 million, in 2017 from his sole name into the wife’s sole name. The husband had received tax advice, namely that if he transferred his assets to his wife before he became domiciled in the UK, the assets would escape inheritance tax. The intention was that the wife would place the assets into a discretionary trust for the benefit of the children of the marriage. 

Therefore, the question put to the family court was whether the investment funds were a matrimonial asset (an asset of the marriage) to which the sharing principle applied.

In the first instance, the family court determined that the investment funds were a non-matrimonial asset, but they became a matrimonial asset once the husband transferred them to the wife. The Court of Appeal then decided that 75% of the investment funds were non-matrimonial property which should be returned to the husband. The further 25% was subject to the sharing principle. 

The wife appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal, arguing that the transfer constituted a ‘gift’, and that the court placed too much weight on the husband being the primary source of the assets. The case therefore was heard by the Supreme Court.

The decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected the wife’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision on the basis that there was nothing to show that the parties were treating the investment funds as shared between them. Rather, the purpose and intention of the transfer was for the husband to save inheritance tax, with the monies being held on trust for the benefit of the children. 

Clarification of the sharing principle and ‘matrimonialisation’

The decision of the Supreme Court provides valuable clarification in relation to the sharing principle, mainly that it shall not apply to non-matrimonial property. This is important, as where an asset is determined to be matrimonial property, the sharing principle will apply, meaning that the starting point is that the asset should be shared equally between the parties.

The Court also provided helpful guidance when determining whether ‘matrimonialisation’ has occurred. When determining whether non-matrimonial property has become matrimonial property, it should be considered how the parties have been dealing with the asset, and whether this shows that they have been treating it as shared. Also, where an asset is transferred with the purpose of saving tax, the Court has confirmed that this will not normally show that the asset was being treated as shared, and therefore the asset has not been ‘matrimonialised’. 

If you would like advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please get in touch via our contact page or contact Ella Stewart directly here.