One year after the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish [2025], family lawyers are still assessing its impact on how wealth is divided on divorce.
While the case involved assets worth tens of millions of pounds, the principles it established are relevant to many families, particularly where one spouse brought significant assets or inherited wealth into the relationship.
The facts of Standish were unusual. During the marriage, the husband transferred investments worth approximately £80 million to the wife as part of an inheritance tax planning arrangement. The intention was that the wife would put the assets into trust for their children, but that never happened. The first court found that the transfer had transformed the assets into matrimonial property available for sharing. Both parties appealed before the matter eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the transfer was motivated by tax planning rather than an intention to share the assets between husband and wife. The Supreme Court emphasised that legal ownership alone is not enough to determine whether an asset should be shared on divorce.
The Supreme Court affirmed the distinction between ‘matrimonial’ and ‘non-matrimonial’ property. Matrimonial property generally consists of wealth built up during the marriage and is usually shared equally. Non-matrimonial property, such as pre-marital assets, inheritances and gifts from third parties, is treated differently unless it has become 'matrimonialised' through the parties’ treatment of it during the marriage.
The cases decided since Standish provide useful guidance on how these principles are being applied in practice.
The family home is special
One of the clearest themes emerging from the post-Standish cases is the special status of the family home. In a 2025 case, VP v SP, the husband had owned the property before the relationship began. However, it had been used throughout the marriage as the family home and had been adapted to meet the needs of the parties' disabled child. The court concluded that the property had become matrimonial despite its pre-marital origins.
The decision serves as a reminder that although the source of an asset remains important, the family home is often viewed differently because of its central role in family life.
Matrimonialisation can be partial
In the 2025 case of RKV v JWC, the court considered a property purchased by the wife before marriage using funds provided by her mother. The property was later occupied by the family for a period, but the wife retained the rental income and did not fully integrate it into the parties' finances.
Rather than deciding that the property was either wholly matrimonial or wholly non-matrimonial, the court concluded that only 30% of the property should be treated as matrimonial property.
This case demonstrates that matrimonialisation is not always an all-or-nothing exercise. The court may recognise both the original source of an asset and how it was used during the marriage.
Tax planning transfers are unlikely to be enough
The courts have also continued to apply one of the central messages from Standish: a transfer of ownership does not automatically lead to sharing.
In a 2026 case, RRE v JPR, substantial wealth originating from the husband's family and compensation payments had been transferred through trust structures and into the wife's name. The court found that the transfers were made for tax and estate planning purposes rather than to be shared. As a result, the assets retained their non-matrimonial character.
The decision reinforces the principle that the court will look beyond legal title and examine the parties' intentions.
Intent is a key factor
The 2026 case of BS v HC centred around whether a husband's pre-marriage pension had become matrimonialised. The wife argued that the parties had always intended to share their finances equally. However, the court held that a general understanding about sharing was not enough. There needed to be evidence that the pension itself had been treated as a shared asset. The wife was awarded 27.5% of the husband’s pension, rather than 50%.
The judgment indicates that courts will increasingly focus on how a particular asset was treated during the marriage and whether both parties regarded it as a shared resource.
Assets can still be shared
While Standish has clarified the protection available to genuinely non-matrimonial assets, it has not made matrimonialisation difficult to establish where the facts justify it.
In another case this year, BC v BC, shares that originally belonged to the husband before the marriage were ultimately used to purchase jointly owned property and fund family expenditure. The court found that the parties had treated the wealth generated by those shares as a shared family resource over many years and concluded that the asset had become matrimonialised and should be shared equally.
Looking ahead
One year on, Standish has not rewritten the law, but it has brought greater clarity. Courts continue to focus on the source of wealth, while also examining how assets were used during the marriage. Pre-marital wealth, inheritances and gifts may still be protected, but not where they have become part of the economic life of the marriage.
For couples seeking to protect inherited or pre-marital wealth Standish highlights the value of careful planning. While the source of an asset is relevant, the way it is managed during the marriage may determine whether it retains its non-matrimonial character. Nuptial agreements, trust structures and clear financial records can all help reduce uncertainty if a relationship breaks down.
Xanthy Papageorgiou
Senior Associate and Mediator, Sinclair Gibson LLP
About Sinclair Gibson LLP
Sinclair Gibson is a leading private client law firm specialising in wealth and succession planning, family law and private client litigation. Its domestic and international clients include those with inherited wealth as well as entrepreneurs, professionals, corporates, and trustees. Sinclair Gibson LLP is recommended in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories.
All views expressed are those of the author and are presented for information purposes only. The information provided in this article is of a general nature and is not a substitute for specific advice about your own circumstances. You are recommended to obtain specific advice from a qualified professional before you take any action or refrain from any action.
