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

This article was published on 29 April 2025 and updated on 2 July 2025.

This week, the Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the landmark family law case of Standish v Standish, which concerns how assets are divided following a divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership.

The Court of Appeal judgment was appealed by Mrs Standish and that appeal was heard in the Supreme Court between 30 April and 1 May 2025. The final judgment was released on 2 July 2025 and the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the wife’s appeal, confirming the Court of Appeal’s approach.

Here, Amy Harris explains the importance of this judgment to couples who are married or in a civil partnership.

Why is Standish v Standish so important?

Standish provided 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, the Court has clarified 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, known as the ‘sharing principle’. 

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’. 

Supreme Court’s judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment 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 Court has also confirmed that the sharing principle does not apply to ‘non-matrimonial property’.

The Court says that the key point is whether the non-matrimonial assets have been transformed into matrimonial assets. It’s 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. Therefore, non-matrimonial funds (e.g. inheritance or family gift) that have been invested into a family home (which has been treated as a joint family asset), will not necessarily be returned to the person who invested them at the time of a divorce.

The outcome of this case underscores the critical role of clearly stating intention and source in asset classification. As Lords Burrows and Stephens made clear, pre-marital or inherited contributions remain highly relevant in determining the fairness of asset division, particularly when the sharing principle is contested. 

The Court has confirmed in Standish that a couple should share in the fruits of their 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. 

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.