Standish v Standish — what is ‘matrimonial property’ in divorce & financial remedy proceedings?

This week, the Supreme Court is due to hear the important family law case of Standish v Standish, which concerns how assets are divided following a divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership.

The initial judgment was appealed and the Supreme Court hearing will take place between 30 April and 1 May 2025. The final judgment will follow at a later date.

Here, Amy Harris explains why the judgment is so eagerly anticipated, as well as the likely outcome and what this would means for couples.

Why is Standish v Standish so important?

Standish will (hopefully) provide Judges, family lawyers and their clients with welcome clarity as to how non-matrimonial property will be treated in financial remedy proceedings following a divorce. Specifically, we’re anticipating that the Court will clarify the law surrounding when ‘non-matrimonial property’ can become ‘matrimonial property’.

The final judgment will be of great interest both to happily married couples who are undergoing wealth planning as well as divorcing couples, who’ll want to know how their assets are to be divided by the Court.

What is matrimonial property?

Matrimonial property is that generated within the marriage partnership. When a couple gets divorced, it’s usually ordinarily shared equally between both parties — even if it’s solely owned by one person. 

What is non-matrimonial property?

Non-matrimonial property is generally generated outside the relationship. When a couple gets divorced, it’ll generally be kept by the party whose property it is, unless it’s required to meet the needs of the couple. Non-matrimonial property often includes assets that one person owned before the marriage (otherwise called ‘pre-acquired’ assets) or those that may be received by one party during the marriage but kept separately to the marriage partnership (such as an inheritance). 

The debate over assets

Due to the discretionary nature of the financial remedy system, a great deal of time and money can be spent by couples debating whether assets that one person has brought to the marriage or civil partnership (i.e., non-matrimonial property) has been ‘matrimonialised’ and would therefore be subject to being shared on divorce or the dissolution of civil partnership. It’s important to note that such ‘matrimonialised property’ isn’t always shared equally.

Property can be ‘matrimonialised’ by the way in which it’s used or treated by a couple during their relationship. For example, if property or funds that one party brought to the marriage are used jointly by a couple —perhaps  to purchase a family home — it may be that those resources have been ‘matrimonialised’. On the other hand, if property or assets have been kept very separate, there’s an argument that it may not have been ‘matrimonialised’. 

Court of Appeal’s judgment

The Court of Appeal’s judgment (which has itself been appealed) found that the source of funds was important when the Court is considering a fair outcome — and that pre-acquired or non-matrimonial assets can be ‘matrimonialised’ and therefore shared between couples in financial remedy proceedings. 

The Supreme Court is expected to assess whether this ‘sharing principle’ applies equally to all matrimonial assets (including ‘matrimonialised’ assets) or whether ‘matrimonialised’ assets should be treated differently. If ‘matrimonialised’ assets should be treated differently, it’ll also examine how the source of the asset will affect distribution.

While the Court of Appeal in Standish confirmed that a couple should share in the “fruits of the partnership”, it also confirmed that marriage shouldn’t entitle a partner to share in distinct/separate non-matrimonial contributions. This means that if the couple’s needs are met, non-marital contribution should be respected. 

What now?

The judgment is likely to uphold and retain the broad discretion of financial remedy Judges to find a fair and just outcome for divorcing couples. 

For most people, their needs will take priority on divorce. Yet for wealthy couples who have assets in excess of their needs, this case will underline the importance of pre- and post-nuptial agreements. Such agreements may provide couples with the best chance of making whatever financial arrangements suit them during the marriage while also ensuring that assets are ringfenced in the event of a future relationship breakdown — whether those assets are matrimonial or not. 

The Standish case will also address how the movement of money that’s specifically undertaken for tax/wealth planning is treated on divorce, so might further provide clarity for happily married couples who may be considering how to structure their finances and move money between spouses and the wider family.

Warning on tax exposure

In light of the changes to inheritance tax brought by last year’s Autumn Budget, many families have responded by considering ways to minimise tax exposure, including through lifetime gifting to family members. For business owners, this may include gifting shares in a business. 

The Standish case is a reminder that such transactions can carry unintended consequences — so any decisions should be considered holistically with coordinated advice from experts. This will help to ensure that couples can achieve their planning objectives while also mitigating risks.

Talk to us

Through Brabners Personal, we work to provide legal and financial certainty wherever we can. This brings together a wide range of award-winning solicitors to help you plan effectively for the future.

If you need advice about wealth and estate planning, your family or relationship or a divorce or civil partnership dissolution, our experts are here to help. 

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at personal@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.