In one of the most anticipated divorce law rulings in the UK for many years, lawyers consider the implications of the Wednesday ruling in the Supreme Court on a UHNW couple and their dispute over how wealth is carved up. The ruling could also boost London's standing as a "divorce" jurisdiction.

Lawyers have responded to a UK Supreme Court ruling this week that said a former banker who gave his wife £78 million ($106.4 million) will not have to split it evenly with her after their divorce. The case, which highlights how assets are divided up following the end of a marriage, has major implications for marital law.

One impact appears to be that the case shows why pre-nuptial agreements are now essential. It also shows that there is a clear distinction between the source of wealth and title. Another way to put it is that it draws a line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial wealth. (See this article from a few days earlier that flagged the salient issues in the case.)

In 2017, before their divorce, Clive Standish, 72, transferred investments worth £77.8 million to his wife, Anna, as part of a tax planning scheme. These assets had originally been Clive’s non-matrimonial property. The couple married in 2005 – this was the second marriage for both – and have two children together. However, the marriage broke down in 2020. In 2022, a high court judge split the family’s total wealth of £132 million by awarding Clive £87 million and Anna £45 million. The former challenged this decision at the court of appeal, saying that most of the money, including the transferred assets, was earned before they began living together.

As noted here before the court’s ruling this week, the case drew attention to one of the most contentious issues in financial remedy cases in England and Wales – to what extent can property be matrimonialised? 

The case may influence how family law, and wealth management professionals, advise clients in future, specifically in nuptial agreements and the protection of pre-marital wealth.

We carry a range of reactions from lawyers:

Vandana Chitroda, partner in the family law team, Broadfield
The court highlighted a "conceptual distinction" between non-matrimonial and matrimonial property. The time has now come to recognise that in divorce cases the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property, unless, of course, consideration needs to be given to “needs” and “compensation.”

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the transferred asset had been treated as shared. As the transfer was designed to save tax, the court did not find that the funds had been treated as shared and therefore had not been matrimonialised.

The conclusion was that the Court of Appeal’s decision that 25 per cent of the assets in 2017 were matrimonial and 75 per cent were non-matrimonial is correct and, therefore, only the matrimonial assets should be shared equally.

“This decision crystallises the principle that only matrimonial assets should be available for sharing on divorce. It highlights that non-matrimonial funds should be treated as such, even in circumstances where they have been transferred to a spouse, provided that the asset was not treated as shared subsequently.

Prateek Swaika, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner
“The Supreme Court’s message is unequivocal: Source trumps title. Origin beats ownership. For wealth creators and inheritors, this is a decisive victory. Courts must now trace the genesis of assets – not rubber-stamp legal transfers – when dividing marital pots. Mere re-titling assets for tax or convenience? That won’t convert pre-marital gold into marital property.

“Immediate takeaways for our UHNW litigation clients: Your weapon: argue source, not structure. Isolate pre-marital wealth with forensic asset-tracing. Your shield: prenups just became non-negotiable. Document asset origins before vows – or pay the price. Your red flag: tax-driven transfers without explicit agreements? Standish just made them landmines.

Why this judgment changes everything: For our UHNW International clients: England now favours wealth creators more than other jurisdictions. Restructure now. For litigators: attack matrimonialisation’ claims by forcing opponents to prove commingling beyond title shifts. For advisors: Tax plans ignoring matrimonial risk are malpractice. Integrate both – or face Standish-scale blowback.

Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm, Shakespeare Martineau
“Today’s landmark decision marks a significant narrowing of the concept of “matrimonialisation.” Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset.  

While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don’t always reflect long-term intentions. A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation.  

Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.

Chris Lloyd-Smith, partner in the matrimonial team at law firm Anthony Collins
Without a doubt this marks a significant moment for the evolution of matrimonial finance law, particularly when splitting assets.  

The court’s decision on whether non-matrimonial assets can be ‘matrimonialised’ through intention or use will have a measurable impact, particularly for high net worth divorces and the interpretation of financial gifts between spouses. 

With the judgment being in favour of Mr Standish, the court has set a precedent of firmer boundaries between personal and shared wealth. This may reassure those entering marriage with substantial pre-existing assets, but it also raises questions about fairness in situations where shared use or dependency is later contested. 

The most important takeaway is that transparent financial planning in relationships is crucial. When it comes to managing expectations and reducing legal uncertainty, pre- and post-nuptial agreements, that are reviewed regularly, are important tools to divide and protect assets with clarity. This way, you protect yourself and set your own terms, instead of relying on a court decision. 

Jennifer Dickson, family law partner, Withers
Mr Standish has been able to have his cake and eat it today and wealthy spouses will breathe a sigh of relief at this Supreme Court judgment, which has declined to accept Mrs Standish's argument that the £77.8 million her husband transferred to her as part of a tax planning exercise in 2017 should be equally divided between them.

The judgment makes clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle and matrimonial property should ordinarily be shared 50/50, but that non-matrimonial property can be 'matrimonialised' depending on the couple's intention and treatment of that wealth during the marriage. Had the tax planning exercise been designed to benefit Mrs Standish, rather than their children, it may well have been a different story.

Caroline Holley, partner at Farrer & Co
Standish may be a case involving the super-wealthy, but today’s judgment is relevant to everyone.

Whilst in most divorces, the division of finances will be determined by the needs of the spouses, in those cases where there is more money than is required to meet those needs, the court’s approach is to share the matrimonial assets between the spouses. However, it can be difficult to determine what is in the “matrimonial pot” to be shared, which often leads to costly disputes. In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court has made clear that how the parties deal with an asset during a marriage is the key question when considering whether an asset has been matrimonialised. In essence, have they been treating the asset as shared between them? 

While each case will turn on its facts, pre-nuptial agreements remain the best way to protect non-matrimonial assets on divorce.

Emily Brand, head of family [law] at Boodle Hatfield
Today’s Supreme Court judgment in Standish v Standish is a victory of fact over theory.

The question at the heart of this case was whether assets transferred during the course of a marriage had become "matrimonialised" and therefore capable of sharing on divorce. Today’s ruling makes it abundantly clear that whilst non-marital assets can indeed become “matrimonialised” during a marriage if they are treated as being shared over time, this was not the case here.

Mr Standish’s transfer of £77 million to his wife during their marriage ostensibly as a gift but explicitly for inheritance tax planning was therefore not deemed to have been "matrimonialised" and a 50/50 division of these assets on divorce did not apply.

Divorcing couples should appreciate that the provenance of their wealth is material and not assume that the transfer of title from one to the other will automatically "matrimonialise" that asset making it subject to "sharing." Married couples need to be clear about their intentions when transferring assets between themselves and should record these intentions by way of a nuptial agreement.”

Will MacFarlane, partner in the family and divorce team at Kinglsey Napley
This decision brings greater clarity to financially stronger parties seeking to undertake IHT planning and helps reduce the risk of them being exposed if their marriages break down.

Until now, there has always been a conflict between IHT planning and wealth protection. This is a green light for those seeking to transfer assets between spouses for IHT planning as it cannot now be assumed that those assets will be matrimonialised.

A stand-out point from today’s judgment is that if transfers taking place within an IHT planning exercise are clearly for the benefit of the next generation or someone other than the recipient of the assets, matrimonialisation is unlikely to have occurred. Another major lesson from this case for family lawyers and wealthy individuals is that if Mr and Mrs Standish had entered into a postnuptial agreement this litigation could have been avoided. Had they done so the purpose of the transfer of assets to Mrs Standish would have been clearly set out and agreed so respective interests could have been protected.   

The Standish decision also endorses the compensation principle for spouses who have given up work in support of the financially stronger party in the marriage.