Standish vs. Standish To Clarify How Pre-Marital Wealth Is Treated

A high-stakes divorce case due to be heard in the UK Supreme Court on 30 April 2025 could reshape how pre-marital wealth and transfers between spouses are treated on divorce, according to family law experts at law firm Irwin Mitchell.

The eagerly anticipated hearing in Standish vs. Standish will examine whether a £77m transfer from husband to wife during the marriage should be classified as a matrimonial asset – or ringfenced as part of long-term estate planning.

The case involves Clive Standish, a retired UBS banker, and his former spouse, Anna Standish. The couple, who married in 2005 and initiated divorce proceedings in 2020, are disputing the classification of a £77m transfer from Clive to Anna during their marriage. This transfer, intended as part of an estate planning strategy for their children, was never finalised into a trust, leading to significant legal debates.

The High Court initially deemed the transferred assets as matrimonial property, awarding Anna £45m. However, the Court of Appeal reduced this award to £25m in May 2024, emphasising the importance of the source of wealth – primarily Clive's pre-marital asset. Anna has now been granted permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. 

Expert Opinion

“The Standish v Standish case could become a landmark in family law. The Supreme Court's decision is expected to clarify how intra-marital transfers and pre-marital wealth are treated, which could affect estate planning and asset protection for wealthy individuals.

“The case will explore whether gifts between spouses should be considered joint assets, touching on key principles of English and Welsh Family Law. The outcome might change how pre-marital wealth and spousal gifts are handled in divorces.

“The Court of Appeal made it clear that just because assets are transferred between spouses, it doesn't automatically make them joint property. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could mean increased protection for wealthy spouses keeping their assets separate.

“The outcome of the Court of Appeal heralded a departure, however I think it’s unlikely to be upheld in its entirety by the Supreme Court.

“The burden is on the wife to show that the gift became matrimonial and courts have historically been cautious in accepting this argument unless there is clear evidence that the transfer was made with the intention to share it as joint marital property – which appears absent in this case.”

Ros Bever, Managing Partner of Irwin Mitchell’s Private Client Group and family law expert

Irwin Mitchell's family law team has a strong track record for handling high-profile divorce cases and is recognised for its ability to navigate complex financial disputes. Notable examples include the landmark Supreme Court cases of Sharland v Sharland and Gohil vs. Gohil. In Sharland vs. Sharland, the team secured a ruling that emphasised the necessity of full and frank disclosure in divorce proceedings, setting a significant legal precedent. Similarly, in Gohil vs. Gohil, they successfully argued for the reopening of a financial settlement due to hidden assets, reinforcing the principle of transparency and fairness.

 The hearing is expected to last 1.5 days and judgment in the case is expected later this year.