A high-profile divorce case involving a retired USB banker and his former wife, due to begin at the UK Supreme Court on 30 April, could have significant implications on how courts divide wealth when a marriage ends.
The hearing marks the first major Supreme Court consideration of marital asset allocation in nearly two decades. At the heart of the dispute is whether assets accumulated before a marriage — so-called ‘non-matrimonial property’ — should be subject to what is known as ‘the sharing principle’.
The high-profile divorce case could have a major impact on how pre-marital wealth and intra-spousal transfers are treated in divorce settlements, family lawyers tell Spear’s.
[Best family lawyers for high-net-worth clients in 2024]
What is Standish v Standish?
Standish v Standish, involving Clive Standish, an ex banker who had amassed a significant wealth before marrying his former wife Anna, focuses on whether a £77 million transfer made during their marriage should be considered a matrimonial asset or remain protected as part of estate planning.
The couple, who married in 2005 and began divorce proceedings in 2020, are disputing the classification of the transfer, which was intended to be settled into a trust for their children. Mrs Standish did not establish the trust and instead filed for divorce.
The case follows a high-profile appeal last year, where the Court of Appeal slashed Mrs Standish’s original £45 million settlement to £25 million, the largest such reduction in English legal history. Stewarts’ partners Sam Longworth and Lucy Stewart-Gould and associate, Fiona Porter, successfully argued that the majority of the couple’s shared wealth had been generated by Mr Standish prior to marriage.
Content from our partners
[See also: The best divorce lawyers in London]
Mrs Standish was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, with the outcome expected to shape future interpretations of asset division in divorce — particularly regarding gifts between spouses and estate planning.
Ros Bever, Spear’s Top Recommended family lawyer and managing partner at Irwin Mitchell, said the hearing could become a ‘landmark case’ that could influence both asset protection and estate planning strategies, while Top Recommended Spear’s family lawyer Longworth, Stewarts’ lead partner representing Mr Standish, said: ‘Standish represents the critical next phase in the development of the law relating to asset division on divorce.’
The hearing will last 1.5 days, with a ruling anticipated later in 2025.
What’s at stake?
The case revolves around ‘matrimonialisation,’ or how pre-marital assets, like the £77 million transferred by Mr Standish to his wife during the marriage for tax planning, might become subject to equal division under the sharing principle.
The upcoming Supreme Court ruling could significantly influence divorce settlements and how courts interpret asset ownership.
[See also: Surge in wealthy divorcing couples hiring private judges to resolve financial disputes]
Amy Radnor, partner at Farrer & Co, said: ‘The implications of this case are extremely wide-reaching. For example, the court’s decision could affect anyone who puts an inheritance from before the marriage into a joint bank account because it gets a better interest rate or transfers a pre-marital flat into joint names because it’s easier to remortgage.
‘If you divorce, should the court look at whose legal name the asset is in, or at the history of where the asset actually came from and why it ended up in that person’s legal name in the first place.
‘This is a point with the potential to affect a huge number of outcomes, so family lawyers are awaiting the Supreme Court judgment with great interest.’
[See also: Surge in wealthy divorcing couples hiring private judges to resolve financial disputes]
Bever adds: ‘The burden is on the wife to show that the gift became matrimonial… unless there is clear evidence that the transfer was made with the intention to share it.’
Lead solicitor for Mr Standish and Spear’s Recommended Family Lawyer, Stewarts’ partner Lucy Stewart-Gould, said the case could become the next big shake-up in divorce proceedings.
‘In White [2000], the House of Lords confirmed that the work of the ‘breadwinner’ and the ‘homemaker’ during a marriage should be treated equally upon divorce; reliance on which spouse owns an asset risks discrimination.
In Miller/McFarlane [2006] the ‘sharing’ principle was established. In Standish the Supreme Court will confirm when, if ever, assets generated outside of a marriage can be shared.’
