Family Law

Our Enfield family lawyers and solicitors specialise in helping married and unmarried couples and those in civil partnerships to resolve their differences and achieve the best possible future for themselves and their children.

To ensure that help is at hand when needed, our family and divorce lawyers offer initial consultations which fit around your working hours and other commitments.

Family Advice Sessions can be arranged in complete confidence. From the 3rd June 2024 we charge £125.00 +VAT for the first appointment and there is no further obligation.

News - posted 8th October 2025 by Urmii Seenath

Supreme Court judgement

 Standish v Standish

Sharing of non-matrimonial assets in financial cases on Divorce

The overall aim of a court in making a financial order on divorce is to achieve a fair outcome. In so doing, courts are guided by certain key principles. The appeal in the case of Standish (Appellant) v Standish (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 26 concerns, in particular, the “sharing principle” and arises out of proceedings brought under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for the court to make a division of the parties’ assets upon divorce.

The husband by the age of 72 had accumulated substantial wealth from his career in the financial services industry. The wife aged 57 was a homemaker in what was a second marriage for them both. They cohabited from 2004, were married in 2005 and had two children together.

The appeal in this case concerned a portfolio of investments, which the husband transferred from his sole name into the wife’s sole name in 2017 (the 2017 Assets) as part of a tax planning scheme, which she was to place in trusts for the children thereby negating inheritance tax. She did not set up the trusts and retained the Assets in her sole name, which by the time of the trial, were worth approximately £80 million. The marriage broke down in 2020 and the wife commenced divorce proceedings.

The trial judge held that, pre-transfer, most of the 2017 Assets had been “non-matrimonial” property and by virtue of the transfer, the non-matrimonial portion of the Assets became matrimonial property, which meant that the sharing principle applied. Given that the assets were sourced primarily by the husband the Judge considered that the appropriate division should be 60/40 in favour of the husband.

Upon appeal by both parties, the Court of Appeal decided that the husband was entitled to 75% of the 2017 Assets plus half of 25% of those Assets which was considered as matrimonial property subject to the sharing principle.

The wife appealed to the Supreme Court and alleged that the Court of Appeal placed too much weight on the husband being the primary source of the 2017 Assets and that the 2017 transfer of the assets was a gift to her.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal, upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and gave the reasons for their judgement:

Sections 23 and 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 lay down the financial provision and property adjustment orders that a court may make upon a divorce.

Section 25 grants courts a wide discretion in the exercise of those powers, and provides that they must take account of all the circumstances of the case and certain key principles to include the “sharing principle” which is relevant to this appeal.

The Judges set out the following principles that are relevant to the application of the sharing principle.

Firstly, there is a distinction between non-matrimonial property which is typically pre-marital property brought into the marriage by one of the parties, or acquired by external gift or inheritance, and matrimonial property which is property which is acquired through the joint efforts of the parties and which is not dependent upon which party holds the legal title to the property. Non-matrimonial property can be subject to the needs of the parties when applicable which was not the case in this appeal.

The starting point is that matrimonial property should be shared on an equal basis although there are departures from equality.

Although assets may be initially non- matrimonial they may become matrimonialised through the process of matrimonialisation”. It is important to consider how the parties have been dealing with the asset and whether this shows that, over time, they have been treating the asset as shared between them.

A transfer of an asset between spouses in a scheme designed to save tax, irrespective of the time period involved, will not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between the spouses. Therefore, such a transfer will not normally constitute matrimonialisation which was applicable in this appeal.

The Supreme Court Judges found that there was no reason to interfere with the Court of Appeal’s assessment that 25% of the 2017 Assets was matrimonialised property and 75% was non- matrimonialised property. The 25% that was matrimonialised property should be shared equally. There was nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 Assets as shared between them. The transfer of the 2017 Assets to the wife was to save tax and it was for the benefit of the children, by saving inheritance tax, not for the benefit of the wife.

Therefore, the 75% of the 2017 Assets that was the non-matrimonialised property had not been matrimonialised. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly decided that the husband was entitled to 75% of the 2017 Assets which was not subject to the sharing principle plus half of 25% of those Assets which constituted matrimonial property which should be shared equally as it was subject to the sharing principle.

If you require any Family Law advice please contact Urmii Seenath: UrmiiSeenath@vanderpumps.co.uk