UK Supreme Court Hands Down Judgment in Standish £77m Divorce Case

The UK Supreme Court has today unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal in the landmark Standish v Standish divorce case, confirming that the bulk of the £77 million transferred to her during the marriage remained the husband’s non-matrimonial property.

This ruling is expected to reshape how non-matrimonial assets are treated in high-net-worth divorce proceedings, particularly where wealth has been transferred for tax or estate planning purposes.

The case centred on whether assets originally held by Clive Thomas Standish, and later transferred to his wife Anna Catherine Standish as part of a tax planning scheme, should be considered matrimonial property and thus subject to division under the ‘sharing principle’.

The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that at least 75% of the assets were non-matrimonial, reducing Mrs. Standish’s award from £45 million to £25 million.

The Supreme Court upheld that decision, confirming that the assets had not been ‘matrimonialised’—a term the Court endorsed as useful to describe when property becomes subject to equal sharing because the parties have treated it as shared over time.

The Court clarified that the mere act of transferring wealth during marriage does not automatically change its status. Instead, whether an asset becomes matrimonial depends on how it is treated by the parties, not on assumptions or labels.

This decision reinforces the principle that non-matrimonial property is not subject to the sharing principle—only to needs and compensation—and provides authoritative guidance for estate planners and high-net-worth individuals. It also underscores the importance of documenting the purpose and treatment of intra-marital transfers with precision.

Ros Bever, Managing Partner of Irwin Mitchell’s Private Client Group and a leading authority on complex divorce litigation, commented, “This is an entirely sensible judgment. The Supreme Court has delivered welcome clarity on the treatment of non-matrimonial property, reinforcing the principle that wealth acquired outside of the marriage, even if transferred between spouses, is not automatically subject to sharing and that the purpose of intra-marital transfers must be clearly identified during a marriage. It’s a decisive outcome for those focused on wealth preservation.”

Ros is widely recognised for her work on landmark cases, including Sharland v Sharland and Gohil v Gohil, both of which were unanimously decided in favour of her clients by the Supreme Court in 2015.