The Standish v Standish 2024 case clarifies whether pre-marital assets are “matrimonial” or “non-matrimonial” in divorce proceedings. This landmark decision by the Court of Appeal clarifies the sharing principle in financial remedy cases.
Facts of the case
The husband and wife started their relationship in 2003 and married in 2005. They had two children together. The husband retired in 2007, and the parties returned to live in the UK in 2010.
The husband had a successful career and acquired much wealth before meeting his wife. Throughout the relationship, the wife was the homemaker with modest pre-marital assets.
In 2017, the husband transferred approximately £77 million to the wife as part of a tax planning exercise to place it in trust for the children. However, this never happened, and the wife then issued divorce proceedings in early 2020.
In this case, approximately £132 million of assets were involved. In the first instance, the judge found that £122 million, including the £77 million gift, were matrimonial assets. Therefore, they were subject to the sharing principle when calculating any settlement. Of that, only £20 million was determined to be non-matrimonial.
Decision made by the Court of Appeal
The judge gave a 60/40% (£67 million/£45 million) split in the husband’s favour. However, the wife appealed.
The wife’s grounds of appeal:
- The transfers she received in 2017 changed the assets into her property. The title, not the source, of the property was determinative.
- Alternatively, the assets were matrimonial property, so the sharing principle applied. The judge, at first instance, should have found the “Ardenside property” was a matrimonial asset. Although the husband owned it before the marriage, the parties had holidayed there and improved it during the marriage, such that it became “matrimonialised”.
The husband’s grounds of appeal were:
- The sharing principle should not apply to the husband’s Ardenside property or the transfers of wealth made to the wife in 2017. The genesis or source of the assets is essential. He believes these assets formed part of the husband’s pre-marital wealth and should be ring-fenced and excluded from the sharing exercise.
- Alternatively, if these assets were classed as “matrimonial,” the court’s first-instance decision resulted in the wife receiving an excessive share of the family’s overall assets because that decision failed to recognise the husband’s unmatched contributions and ignored the considerable pre-marital wealth that he brought into the marriage.
As a result, the Court of Appeal reduced the wife’s award to £20 million, the largest ever reduction in UK divorce history.
The impact and significance of this case
The case of Standish has given a greater range for the argument that an asset brought into the marriage will not automatically be assumed to be subject to the sharing principle.
This decision also outlines the importance of the source of assets when considered in financial remedy proceedings. It highlights that even though an asset is brought into the marriage, it will not automatically be assumed to be subject to the sharing principle.
Harrington Family Law are expert family and divorce solicitors who can help you with various matrimonial property matters. We can assist with non-matrimonial and matrimonial assets to transfer ownership of previously shared property.
For more information, email us at info@harringtonfamilylaw.co.uk or call 01484 810210 for a free initial half-hour consultation. Alternatively, use our online contact form to send us an enquiry.