The Standish Divorce: How An £80 Million Dispute Changed The Rules on Matrimonial Assets

The case revolved around Clive Standish, a former UBS executive, and his ex-wife, Anna Standish, focusing on whether substantial assets transferred during their marriage were matrimonial or non-matrimonial property. 

The Background:  £80 Million Transferred for Tax Planning - But Was It a Gift? 

Clive and Anna Standish were married for 15 years and have two children.  In 2017, Clive transferred approximately £80 million in investments to Anna's name.  This move was primarily for tax planning purposes, leveraging Anna's non-domicile status to minimise inheritance tax liabilities and to benefit their children through offshore trusts.  However, after their separation in 2020, the classification of these assets became a contentious issue in their divorce proceedings.  These investment funds had been accumulated by Clive prior to the marriage, and he argued that on that basis they were "non matrimonial". 

The Legal Battle:  From High Court to Supreme Court - How the Judges Ruled

It should be said at the outset that this was a "big money" case dealing with the principle of sharing.  The principles of needs and/or compensation, which are applicable to most cases, were not before the Court in this case. 

• High Court Decision (2022):  The High Court treated the transferred assets as matrimonial property, awarding Anna £45 million.  The source of the funds was significant, which led to the division of 60% to Clive and 40% to Anna.  On this basis, no needs assessment for Anna was required.  
• Court of Appeal (2024):  The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, determining that the assets remained non-matrimonial and were not subject to equal division.  Anna's award was reduced to £25 million.  The Court of Appeal held that the source of assets was determinative and that the transfer has not matrimonialised any of the 2017 assets.  The Court of Appeal held that 75% of the assets remained non-matrimonial and were not subject to the sharing principle - they held that the matrimonial assets amounted to £50.48 million, and this was subject to the sharing principle, which provided Anna with £25 million and Clive with £107 million. 
• Supreme Court Ruling (July 2025): Anna appealed and contended that the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the transfer of assets did not result in their matrimonialisation.  In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, emphasising that the source of the assets and the intention behind their transfer are crucial in determining their classification.  The Court noted that the assets were intended for tax efficiency and to benefit the children, not as a gift to Anna, and thus remained non-matrimonial.

Matrimonial vs Non-Matrimonial Assets:  Key Legal Principle from Standish v Standish

• There is a distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, and the source of the assets is key.  Matrimonial assets are accrued through a couple's joint efforts and common endeavour during the marriage.  Non-matrimonial assets are accrued before the marriage or accrued during the marriage by way of gift or inheritance.  
• This case underscores that assets acquired before marriage or intended for specific purposes (like tax planning or benefiting children) may not be subject to equal division unless they have been "matrimonialised", that is, treated by both parties as shared assets during the marriage. 
• Merely transferring assets to a spouse does not automatically make them matrimonial assets. 
• Non-matrimonial assets should not be subject to the sharing principle, though they can be subject to the principles of needs and/or compensation and therefore shared to meet needs. 
• The starting point for matrimonial assets is that they should be shared on an equal basis, but there can be justified departures from equality. 

What This Case Means for You:  Key Divorce Lessons from the Supreme Court

•  Intent Matters: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the intention behind the transfer of assets plays a central role in deciding whether they are matrimonial or non-matrimonial.   
• Non-Matrimonial Assets are Protected:  The judgment strengthens protections for non-matrimonial assets, particularly those acquired before marriage or intended for other purposes (like children or tax planning), unless they are clearly treated as shared.   
• Documentation and Planning are Crucial:  The case highlights the importance of thorough financial documentation and legal clarity in asset management during marriage. 
• Impact on Future Cases:  The decision sets a precedent that could reshape how Courts assess large divorce settlements and what qualifies as a "reasonable needs" award.  This case returns to the High Court to assess whether the £25 million awarded to Anna adequately meets her reasonable needs.  

Legal and Financial Implications:  Why This Divorce Case Matters for Wealthy Couples 

This ruling has major implications for family law practitioners, estate planners and wealthy couples, emphasising the need for prenuptial agreements and clear communication about the purpose of asset transfers during marriage.  It also signals a more conservative approach from the Courts regarding asset reclassification, which may limit large awards in future high-net-worth divorces. 

How We Can Help

Our expert Family Law team at Blanchards Bailey is here to help you navigate complex financial disputes, whether you are dealing with high-value assets or want clarity on what is considered matrimonial property.  For specialist advice tailored to your situation, please contact Laura Martin on 01258 488216, or email laura.martin@blanchardsbailey.co.uk

You can also visit our Family Law webpage for more information.