The end of any relationship can bring emotional challenges, but deciding ‘who gets what’ is often one of the most difficult parts of a divorce. Should everything be shared equally, or should inherited wealth, business interests, or family gifts be treated differently? The 2025 Supreme Court case of Standish v Standish sheds new light on these questions – particularly for high-value divorces, but for more typical scenarios too.

 In this article, we explore what this case tells us about how courts decide which assets are matrimonial, how transfers for tax planning or trusts are treated, and why pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements can help provide clarity. We also look at practical examples to explain why legal advice is essential at every stage.

 By understanding these points, whether you are planning a marriage, managing assets during it, or considering separation, you can make more informed decisions.

What is Matrimonialisation?

The concept of “matrimonialisation” refers to the way non-matrimonial assets, like wealth accumulated before marriage, can be absorbed into the pool of marital wealth. This usually happens when assets are mixed with family finances or used to support the couple’s life together – for example, when inherited money is spent on holidays, home improvements, or school fees.

 If you decide to divorce, those funds effectively become part of your marital pot and are subject to equal division.

Standish vs Standish: The dispute

Standish v Standish 2025 was a high-net-worth divorce with wealth running into the tens of millions.

 Initially, Mrs Standish was awarded a financial settlement of around £45 million, based on the judge treating a £77.8 million transfer from Mr Standish in 2017 as part of the marital pot. Following the initial ruling, Mr Standish cross-appealed. He argued that the wealth he transferred to his wife should not be divided equally because it had been transferred for tax planning purposes, with the clear intention that it would ultimately be held in trust for the couple’s children, rather than forming part of the “matrimonial pot”.

 The plan had been that Mr Standish would leverage Mrs Standish's non-domiciled status (being Australian) to reduce inheritance tax liabilities and ultimately benefit their children through offshore trusts – although these trusts had not yet been set up at the point when the couple divorced.

The ruling

The Court of Appeal agreed that the funds were, for the most part, not marital wealth, ruling that around 75% of the transferred assets should remain non-matrimonial.

This meant that only 25% of the funds would be shared with Mrs Standish, reducing her original award from circa £45 million to £25 million.

Mrs Standish then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had gone too far in excluding assets from sharing. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, confirming that what really mattered was where the assets came from and why they were transferred – it was never truly intended to form part of the couple’s shared wealth and so should not be treated as matrimonial.

Dividing assets: What courts now consider

Traditionally, English courts worked on the basis that marital assets should usually be split equally, while assets brought into the marriage – such as inheritances or pre-marital business interests – could sometimes be excluded.

 The Standish v Standish ruling provides clarity for high-net-worth divorces, challenging the idea that all transfers between spouses automatically amount to “matrimonialisation”.

 The case demonstrates that the source and intention behind an asset transfer are the main factors that a court should consider. Now, assets can remain separate if there is clear evidence about:

• their origins
• the purpose of the transfer

For example, if one spouse transfers company shares purely to reduce tax and it is documented that the shares were always intended for a family trust, those shares could remain non-matrimonial.

 On the other hand, if inherited money is used to buy a family home or cover everyday expenses, it’s likely to be treated as matrimonial, even if it originally belonged to just one spouse.

 Another example could be if a substantial cash gift from a parent was immediately reinvested into a jointly-owned property, the court could see that as blending into marital wealth, even if the original intention was different.

Needs and fairness still matter

While high-net-worth cases are the ones that typically reach the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, it’s important to remember that most divorces involve more modest assets.

 Even in these cases, non-matrimonial wealth – like small inheritances or pre-marital savings – can be considered if deemed necessary to meet an individual’s essential living requirements.

 The Standish case demonstrates that non-matrimonial property does not simply “sit outside” the case in every situation.

While the Supreme Court accepted that most of the £77.8 million transfer was non-matrimonial because it was intended for tax planning and the children’s trusts, it still ruled that around 25% of the funds should remain in the matrimonial pot. This underlines that even when assets have a clear non-matrimonial source, the court may still allow part of them to be shared to achieve what it sees as a fair outcome.

Essentially, assets may still be drawn on to meet fairness objectives, including:

• needs (like re-housing one spouse or supporting dependent children)
• compensation (like loss of earning capacity due to childcare or career sacrifices)

For instance, if you inherited a substantial sum and kept it separate, you might expect that money to remain untouched. However, if the matrimonial assets – like the family home or joint savings – are insufficient to rehouse both of you and secure any children’s future, the court can consider ‘dipping into’ the inheritance. This reinforces that the 50/50 split is not a blanket rule.

 For high-value divorces, the Standish ruling illustrates that clear evidence of source and intention can protect assets from being shared. In everyday divorces, non-matrimonial assets remain very much in play if needed to meet essential needs.

 For further information, you can access the full Standish v Standish Supreme Court judgment, and you can also read our article: High-net-worth divorce: what you need to know.

When Specialist Legal Advice Is Crucial

Legal advice can be incredibly useful at every stage: before you marry, if you’re making significant financial decisions during your marriage, or if you’re considering separation. Each situation is unique, and even seemingly straightforward assets can have unexpected implications if they are not properly documented.

 It’s important to be clear: the Standish v Standish decision did not change the rules around “needs”. Courts still prioritise ensuring both parties’ essential needs are met.

 Where Standish matters most is in ultra-high-net-worth divorces, where the sheer size of the matrimonial pot often allows needs to be met without touching inherited or trust-based wealth. The Court highlighted that assets can only be protected if their source and purpose are clearly shown.

 Clarity can also come from Pre-nuptial agreements and Post-nuptial agreements, which are increasingly used by couples of all backgrounds — not just the very wealthy.

● A pre-nup can protect assets you bring into marriage or plan to transfer for tax or succession purposes.

● A post-nup can formalise agreements made during the marriage, particularly if your financial circumstances change.

You can learn more about these agreements in our article: Why a prenuptial agreement is the smartest wedding gift you can give yourselves.

Final Thoughts

Standish v Standish will be remembered as a landmark case for defining how courts consider the matrimonialisation of assets. For most couples, needs will take priority, and the treatment of assets will hinge on where they came from and how they’ve been used during the relationship.

 If you want to understand how the court’s approach to dividing assets could affect you and be able to make informed choices about your future, our team at K J Smith Solicitors offers a free 45-minute consultation. Whether you’re planning your marriage, considering a divorce, or exploring efficient tax planning, we provide helpful and impartial advice. Having the right knowledge and support in place will give you clarity and control over the choices that matter most, whatever your future holds