Standish v Standish Appeal: Making A Stand For Fairness

Making a stand for Fairness 

The Supreme Court Delivers Much-Needed Clarity on Financial Remedies on Divorce in the case of Standish v Standish.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Standish v Standish provides crucial guidance on when non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial and when it should be shared on divorce.

As the firm that acted in both the landmark decision of Miller/McFarlane that introduced the sharing principle and the Court of Appeal decision in K v L that considered “matrimonialisation” (whether separate property has become property to be shared between the couple or not), which were referred to in this case, we welcome the progress made towards offering more clarity to couples going through divorce, whilst still safeguarding the overriding application of fairness.

Uncertainty in Financial Remedies

In December, the Law Commission published a scoping report that concluded that financial remedies law does not provide a cohesive framework in which people who are divorcing can expect fair and sufficiently certain outcomes.  The report says that whilst the law gives the court broad discretion to reflect the circumstances of a relationship, the resulting uncertainty can promote dispute rather than settlement.

On the other hand, family practitioners see the value of judicial discretion in their day-to-day cases, allowing the court not only to consider the circumstances of each individual case but also to respond to the development of social norms.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that how an asset is held does not dictate whether it has become matrimonial.  That decision is likely to enable the delivery of fairer outcomes.  However, this means that there will be a holistic assessment of assets and intentions and that may mean disagreements in the short-term, whilst the practicality of this guidance is worked out.

Standish v Standish: Background to the case

Mr and Mrs Standish were married for 15 years from 2005-2020 and had two children. Mr Standish, now aged 72, had accumulated substantial wealth before meeting his wife in 2003.

The crucial event occurred in 2017, when £77.8 million of assets were transferred into Mrs Standish’s name for inheritance tax planning—specifically to establish offshore trusts for their children.  What should be done?  Did the fact that these assets were in Mrs Standish’s name mean they had become matrimonial assets that should be shared equally – or should they continue to be regarded as the assets of Mr Standish and revert back to him if there was a divorce?  Whilst these are large sums, the issue would be the same if the sums were much smaller.

Three separate courts have heard the issue with varying determinations:

1. The first instance judge ruled that while the funds were originally non-matrimonial, they were “matrimonialised” on transfer – converting them from Mr Standish’s assets into marital assets that would usually be shared.  As a result, the judge awarded Mrs Standish £45 million (34% of total assets).

2. The Court of Appeal disagreed, reducing her award to £25 million, finding that 75% of the transferred assets remained non-matrimonial despite the title change.

3. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was correct.  The transfer to the wife did not matrimonialise the asset.

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling

The judgment establishes six key principles:

1. Fairness Remains Central: The non-discrimination principle from White v White continues to govern asset division.

2. Three Pillars Stand Firm: The foundational principles of needs, compensation and sharing from Miller/McFarlane remain paramount.

3. Defining Non-Matrimonial Property: This includes pre-marital assets, inheritances and gifts received during marriage.

4. Matrimonial Property Encompasses Partnership Fruits: Assets reflecting the marriage partnership or created through joint efforts qualify.

5. Legal Title Isn’t Determinative: Specifically transfers for tax purposes do not automatically matrimonialise assets without compelling evidence of shared treatment.

6. Matrimonialisation Requires Shared Treatment: Following K v L, non-matrimonial property only becomes matrimonial when parties treat it as shared over time.

The Practical Impact

This judgment provides important clarity for the first time making it clear that the sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property.  By doing this the Court creates a meaningful distinction between the two asset categories and important guidance for other couples going through divorce.

As the judgment notes, “the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property becomes largely meaningless if the sharing principle applies to the latter as well as the former.”

For those embarking on financial planning, taking advice and recording the intentions behind the arrangements – and indeed what would happen if there were a divorce – will be crucial.

What does this mean for divorcing couples?

Standish does not eliminate judicial discretion but provides clearer parameters for how it is applied. The focus on the actual treatment of assets—rather than legal technicalities—offers a practical framework that should reduce uncertainty and promote settlement.

It builds logically on established precedent while providing the certainty that clients and legal practitioners have long sought. The Court has delivered a framework that preserves fairness while creating predictability—exactly what the Law Commission identified as missing from current law.