A former UBS banker won a landmark legal battle to have the amount his ex-wife received from their divorce reduced by £20 million.
Clive Standish, 69, a former chief financial officer at UBS and sheep farming tycoon, split from wife Anna Standish, 55, in 2020 after a 15-year marriage.
[See also: ‘Computer says no’ divorce case divides family lawyers]
At the time the couple had marital assets of just over £132.5 million. In December 2022, a High Court judge ruled that Mr Standish should receive £87.6 million and Mrs Standish should be awarded £45 million.
However, the couple contested the ruling and the case was heard by the Court of Appeal.
[See also: Leading family lawyers on the future of HNW divorce]
In a ruling handed down on Thursday, appeal court judges said the earlier application of the ‘sharing principle’ – that matrimonial assets should be shared in equal proportions unless there is good reason to depart from equality – had been ‘flawed’ and had resulted in an ‘unjustified division of the family’s wealth in the wife’s favour’.
Content from our partners
Mrs Standish’s settlement was reduced by 45 per cent to £25 million, which is believed to be the highest ever reduction by the Court of Appeal in terms of both percentage and value.
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.
Central to the case was £80 million that Mr Standish had transferred to his wife in 2017 as part of an estate planning arrangement, which he had intended to put into trust for their children. However, Mrs Standish filed for divorce before the arrangement could be completed.
Mrs Standish, who was represented by Baroness Shackleton of Paynes Hicks Beach, argued that the amount had been ‘gifted’ and the amount was considered by the High Court to have been ‘matrimonialised’ and taken into consideration when calculating her original settlement.
[See also: Potanina v Potanin judgment ‘narrows the window for divorce tourists’ in London]
However, lawyers for Mr Standish successfully argued that the transfer of funds did not alter the fact that the assets were largely earned and established by the husband prior to the marriage and therefore were ‘non-matrimonial’.
Stewarts noted the Court of Appeal decision distinguishes between wealth generated as a result of the parties’ endeavours during the course of a marriage, which would be subject to the principle of ‘sharing’ (and a starting position of equal sharing) and wealth that is not generated through either party’s endeavour during the course of a marriage, which would not be subject to the sharing principle.
Lord Justice Moylan, who was sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Phillips, said ‘a fair application of the sharing principle would have resulted in the wife receiving/retaining wealth of approximately £25 million’.
[See also: Best family lawyers for high net worth individuals]
However, the case could be referred back to the High Court for a ‘needs assessment’ if Mrs Standish claims her ‘reasonable needs’ cannot be met by £25 million.
Sam Longworth, the lead partner acting for Mr Standish, said: ‘It is very much hoped that Mrs Standish will not pursue arguments that her reasonable needs cannot be met with the £25 million she has been awarded, so that the parties can now move forward with their lives.
‘If that is pursued, it will raise very interesting legal arguments as to whether or not the “needs” cross check was ever intended to be used in cases where the court’s determination of fairness under the “sharing” principle leaves someone with wealth of £25m. There is a clear legal distinction between what someone reasonably needs, and what they may want.’
