Laura Jones, Trainee Solicitor in the Family Department at Rowlinsons Solicitors discusses this question, particularly in light of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Standish v Standish.
Upon divorce, spouses have claims against one another for income, capital and pensions. Such potential claims are considered at the time the matter is brought before the court rather than from the date of separation. It is therefore important that matters are dealt with as quickly as possible so that anything you go on to acquire is protected and not at risk of potential claims.
A key consideration when looking at the division of assets of divorce is whether such assets are classed as matrimonial or non-matrimonial assets. A non-matrimonial asset is an asset that was owned before or outside of the marriage, so this could include a business that was founded after separation or a property that was owned prior to the marriage. There is therefore an argument as to whether such assets should be taken into account on divorce. Typically, in ‘needs’-based cases, due to the limited assets available, non-matrimonial assets may need to be included within the hypothetical pot in order to meet the parties’ needs for income, capital and pensions. However, the position is slightly different in cases whereby there are substantial assets involved. In these cases, as needs will be met, the court are then required to consider the “sharing principle” which was a key consideration in recent case law, as set out below.
Standish v Standish
This case involved Mr Standish, a wealth banker who married Mrs Standish in 2005. In 2017, Mr Standish transferred investment funds worth £77 million to Mrs Standish and it is significant that those funds had been acquired prior to the parties marriage. The intention of doing so was so that trusts could be set up for the benefit of the parties children, with a view to mitigating inheritance tax. However, the trusts were never set up. Following the parties separation, attention turned to whether the shares were matrimonial in nature and should they be subject to sharing. Should Mrs Standish retain the shares?
At the first hearing, Mrs Standish was awarded £45 million, a proportion of the total assets of £130 million. The judge held that the investment funds ought to be viewed as matrimonial and are to be shared, 60% in Mr Standish’s favour. Both parties subsequently appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal reduced Mrs Standish’s settlement to £25 million. This is thought to be the largest reduction in the English and Welsh Courts when dealing with finances upon divorce. The case then proceeded to the Supreme Court.
On 2nd July 2025, the Supreme Court clarified how non matrimonial assets should be dealt with during divorce proceedings when the sharing principle applies. In essence, the court held that the sharing principle ought to only apply to property that was acquired during the marriage or treated as marital property. The case of Standish v Standish highlights that the source of the assets together with how it is treated throughout the marriage are key considerations in determining how they ought to be divided during divorce, and as such non matrimonial assets are not automatically subject to the sharing principle. In this particular case, the transfer of assets for tax purposes, without the intention to share, are unlikely to be considered matrimonialisation and as such, would not be included within the matrimonial pot for division. Depending on whether an asset is to be considered matrimonial in nature will of course impact upon any financial settlement, and it is therefore imperative that this is explored fully when looking at financial matters.
Head of the Family Department at Rowlinsons Solicitors, Lauren Power, commented as follows;
“The Supreme Court’s judgement is welcomed when dealing with high value cases and provides practitioners with clearer guidance. Source of wealth is a key consideration, particularly when assets were brought into the marriage by one party. Following the judgement, it is now likely that provided needs are met, non-matrimonial property is unlikely to be shared. One then wonders whether the case of Standish will subsequently have an impact upon parties seeking to put in place pre-nuptial agreements if case law like Standish will seek to exclude non-matrimonial property.”
Should you require any assistance in relation to financial matters on divorce or any other matrimonial matter, then please do not hesitate to contact us on 01928 735 333 and we would be happy to assist.