A high-profile divorce case involving a retired USB banker and his former wife at the UK Supreme Court that began on Wednesday could significantly affect 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.
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.
Content from our partners
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.
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.
Lord Faulks KC from Deka Chambers, who is instructed by a Payne Hicks Beach team including Fiona Shackleton and Victoria Hingston, and was representing Mrs Standish today, told the Supreme Court: ‘The perverse effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal is that the wife has almost no entitlement to share in assets that, during the marriage and by the express intention underlying the husband’s gift, she came to own.’
He added: ‘If left uncorrected, the judgment of the Court of Appeal will have significant implications in a considerable number of cases, including those in which one spouse has gifted or transferred assets to the other for all sorts of reasons.’
[See also: The best divorce lawyers in London]
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. Currently, non-matrimonial assets are generally excluded from equal division unless needed to meet the couple’s needs.
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.’
The team of lawyers at Payne Hicks Beach for Mrs Standish – who were present in court today – told Spear’s that ‘the Supreme Court is concerned with three principle issues’.
According to them, the first point at issue is whether the court should deal with gifts that are made from non-matrimonial property from one spouse to the other during the marriage. Then, they said the court has to examine the circumstances in which non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial. The last issue is to determine whether the presumption should be that matrimonial property must be shared equally between the parties.
What impact will the case have?
Duncan Bailey, head of private client at Brabners Personal told Spear’s the ‘decision on Standish will have a real impact’ on wealthy people. ‘Without clear legal structures such as nuptial agreements, even carefully preserved non-matrimonial property could become subject to sharing if it’s deemed to have been “matrimonialised” during the marriage,’ he said.
The case also underscores the risks of tax planning strategies, like lifetime gifting, which may have unintended consequences in divorce, Amy Harris, legal director at Brabners Personal told Spear’s.
‘While the final outcome of Standish remains to be seen, the very existence of the case highlights the importance of taking a holistic approach to wealth planning,’ Harris said. ‘Matters such as inheritance tax should never be looked at in isolation, but as part of a broader strategy for long-term wealth protection.
‘For wealthy couples, this case highlights the importance of nuptial agreements as a tool to protect assets someone may bring into or acquire during a marriage,’ she added.
As Philippa Dolan, partner at Collyer Bristow notes, the case has already had an affect.
‘Standish has already reduced the likelihood that pre-marriage assets will be treated as “matrimonialised”. The Supreme Court will either support this view or restore some of the award of £45 million that the High Court judge concluded would be an appropriate share of the husband’s wealth.
‘This was a long marriage but, as always, the facts of a particular case and the behaviour of the couple involved have a significant effect on the outcome. And there’s always an element of gamble.’
Miranda Fisher, partner in the family law team at Charles Russell Speechlys, said the case was ‘likely to be a key Supreme Court decision in family law’.
‘We have seen, in line with societal change, the growing importance and regularity of nuptial agreements and more recent family court decisions, that pre-marital or non-matrimonial wealth will be of the utmost importance in a big money case where the court is looking at sharing arguments,’ Fisher said.
This article has been updated to include quotes from current proceedings.
