On 2 July 2025, in a landmark judgment and a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, resulting in the Court of Appeal’s largest ever reduction of a divorce award. Why?

Background

Prior to the parties’ marriage in 2005, Mr. Standish had accumulated substantial personal wealth, all of which was non-matrimonial property. During the marriage, in 2017, Mr. Standish transferred around £78million of assets to his wife, specifically for the purpose of tax planning with the clear intention of placing the assets in a trust for the benefit of the children. The couple’s marriage ended in 2020.

In the financial remedy proceedings, the High Court found that the transfer of substantial assets to Mrs. Standish caused the asset to become “matrimonial property”. The consequence was that the assets became available as part of the sharing exercise between the parties, albeit not equally (shared 60:40 in the husband’s favour to reflect his greater contribution). The High Court judge awarded £45 million to the wife.

On appeal by the husband, the Court of Appeal ruled that the transfer to the wife did not deem the assets transferred to have become matrimonial property. The key consideration from the Court of Appeal’s perspective was the source of the property. They determined that 75% of the 2017 assets were non-matrimonial and therefore reduced the wife’s award from £45 million to £25 million. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the leading judgments in the Supreme Court, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens dismissed the wife’s appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal were correct that none of the assets which were transferred to the wife in 2017 were “matrimonialised”. They held that “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”.

6 Key Take Aways from the Supreme Court decision in Standish

• The Supreme Court has assisted in clarifying the conceptual distinction between non-matrimonial and matrimonial property.
• Matrimonial assets arise out of a couple’s joint efforts during the marriage. The starting point should be equal sharing.
• The Supreme Court advanced legal principles and, for the first time, clarified that the sharing principle does apply to non-matrimonial property.
• Non-matrimonial assets most often originate before marriage or arise through a specific gift or inheritance. Sharing can only occur to meet ‘needs’ or if the assets are required as a resource.
• Merely transferring assets to a spouse does not convert them into matrimonial property or create “matrimonialisation”.
• ‘Matrimonialisation’ occurs when there is an intention by the contributor to share non-matrimonial property, coupled with treatment by the parties as shared over time.

The Impact

This judgment provides helpful guidance as to when assets which do not have an originating connection to the marriage partnership should be considered marital and gives the courts a framework to ensure that individuals cannot benefit from running opportunistic or tenuous arguments as to whether they had or had not agreed to share certain assets during the currency of their relationship. It provides clarification to divorcing couples on the issue of how certain assets will be viewed on divorce and reassures litigants that assets acquired prior to the marriage may be ring-fenced in certain circumstances. How you treat the asset and evidence of your intention should be documented where possible.

In the Cayman Islands, there is no statutory definition of ‘matrimonial property’, however in the seminal case of McTaggart [2011] 2 CILR 366, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal held that matrimonial property is “the financial product of the parties’ common endeavour”. Where a party has acquired assets prior to marriage, as a starting point, it follows that those assets are unlikely to be considered as matrimonial property and therefore the principles expounded by the Supreme Court in Standish will apply with equal force in Cayman divorce proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a clear steer towards the preservation by a party of wealth and property which was not created during the marital partnership.

Properly drafted pre or post nuptial agreements can be very helpful in resolving any uncertainty on the issue. If you are concerned about preserving assets or understanding these issues, contact our specialist team at McGrath Tonner.