Supreme Court rules tax-driven asset transfer was non-matrimonial, wife loses £20m appeal.
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark judgment confirming that the sharing principle in divorce does not apply to non-matrimonial assets, leaving a wife without access to £20 million in a closely watched £80 million financial battle.
In Standish v Standish, Anna Standish’s appeal was unanimously dismissed by five justices, who found that her husband’s £77.8 million asset transfer in 2017 was never intended to be shared with her, and therefore remained outside the matrimonial pot.
The dispute arose after Clive Standish, a former UBS executive, transferred the assets to his wife under a tax planning scheme designed to mitigate inheritance tax for their children. The couple’s marriage ended in 2020. At trial, the judge had classified the assets as matrimonial and divided them on a 60:40 basis in the husband’s favour, awarding Anna Standish £45 million.
Embed from Getty ImagesHowever, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It ruled that at least 75% of the transferred assets were non-matrimonial and reduced the wife’s share to £25 million—a £20 million cut. That decision stood as Anna Standish launched a last-ditch appeal to the UK’s highest court.
In a powerful lead judgment delivered by Lords Burrows and Stephens—supported by Lords Reed, Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler—the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling. The justices concluded that the parties had never treated the 2017 assets as jointly owned during their marriage.
“The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them,” the judgment stated. “The transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children.”
Because the assets were ringfenced for tax efficiency and the children’s future—not the marital partnership—the Court found “no matrimonialisation.” That term refers to the legal process by which non-matrimonial property becomes shared through joint use or intention.
The justices clarified: “The 75% remains non-matrimonial property and is not subject to the sharing principle.”
Mr Standish’s legal team, led by Sam Longworth of Stewarts, welcomed the decision. “We are very grateful for the speed at which the Supreme Court reached this unanimous decision to reject the appeal of Mrs Standish,” Longworth said. “The court has provided essential guidance to ensure individuals cannot benefit from running false arguments as to whether they had or had not agreed to share certain assets.”
Family law experts believe the ruling could alter future divorce proceedings for ultra-high-net-worth couples. Yael Selig of Osbornes Law predicted a “surge in enquiries” about prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. “This ruling may offer reassurance to wealthy individuals,” she said, “but formal agreements remain the most robust protection.”
Aasha Choudhary of Shakespeare Martineau described the outcome as a “significant narrowing” of what can count as matrimonialised. “This marks a shift in the legal landscape,” she added. “If couples want a non-matrimonial asset to be shared, it must now be expressly recorded.”
Other legal minds saw the ruling as more evolutionary than revolutionary. Claire Reid, of Hall Brown Family Law, said the decision moved “the goalposts slightly rather than representing a paradigm shift.” Still, the judgment unmistakably signals a stronger judicial tilt towards wealth preservation where intent is demonstrably separate from shared marriage finances.
