Following a divorce or dissolution of a marriage or civil partnership, the Court must decide how to distribute the property of the people involved in the event that they cannot decide how to divide their finances themselves. The court must apply the statutory criteria set out in section 25 of the matrimonial causes acts [1973] in order to arrive at a fair outcome.
The Courts adopts a two-stage approach. Firstly, to compute the value of the assets and secondly to distribute those assets. The Court needs to identify the assets and calculate their current value. Lawyers increasingly look for ways in which they can exclude certain property from the Court’s decision in order to protect the assets of their client. This has led to a distinction between “matrimonial” and “non-matrimonial” assets. The Supreme Court recently made an important decision dealing with these issues. The case of Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 is the case in question.
This content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require advice regarding your relationship, please contact [email protected] or call 0333 240 7373.
The Facts of the Case
The husband had accumulated significant wealth prior to the marriage. He then retired in 2007. The wife was a homemaker. In 2017, as part of tax planning, the husband transferred £77,000,000 to his wife with the intent of settling it into a trust for the children. However, the wife commenced divorce proceedings before any trust was established. By the time of the first Court hearing 2022, the total value of the assets was £132,000,000 with the transferred 2017 assets worth approximately £80,000,000.
In the first decision, the Court classified £112,000,000 as matrimonial property, which included the 2017 assets and an £8,260,000 farming business, deeming these assets “matrimonialised” due to the transfer. As a result, the Court awarded 40% (£45,000,000) of the matrimonial property to the wife and 60% to the husband. The wife appealed seeking £66,000,000.
On appeal (the second decision) the Court decided that the source of the assets, not the title (in whose name it was) was a critical factor in determining whether the assets would be shared. The 2017 assets, having originated from the husband’s pre-marital wealth, remained non-matrimonial and should not be subject to the sharing principle simply because they were transferred into the wife’s name. In other words, the name in which the assets were held is irrelevant but rather the reality of the source of the funds was the deciding factor.
Outcome of the Case
On the 2 July 2025 the Supreme Court (the third decision) made its decision as a result of the further appeal.
In summary, Standish says the following:
- Non-matrimonial property is typically pre-marital property brought into the marriage by one party, or property acquired by one party from an external source or inheritance.
- Marital property is property that reflects the marriage partnership or is the product of the parties’ common endeavour.
- Which party has legal title to the property is not the deciding factor as to whether it is matrimonial or non-matrimonial property.
- The sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property and not to non-matrimonial property.
- The starting point is that matrimonial property should be shared on an equal basis.
- What starts as non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property through a process of “matrimonialisation”. The important factor is 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. If they had been treating the asset as being shared it could be described as matrimonialisation.
- The transfer of an asset between husband and wife regardless of the period involved, will not usually be considered matrimonialisation.
- How should assets be divided in a divorce?
It is important to appreciate that there are some exceptions to the general approach that I have just outlined. For example, if one party to the marriage or civil partnership can demonstrate sufficient “need” for that asset to be invaded, even if it is non-matrimonial property then the court can do so. In short, if one party can show that their “need” exceeded the available “matrimonial assets” then the Court can look to non-matrimonial property.
In any divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, it is therefore imperative to identify the assets and determine whether they were matrimonial or non-matrimonial assets as it may be possible to exclude non-matrimonial property from the Court’s approach in identifying the assets and therefore value to be divided between the parties on any divorce or civil partnership dissolution.
What is considered when dividing assets in a divorce?
Differentiating matrimonial assets from non-matrimonial assets isn’t always straightforward.
Matrimonial property typically consists of assets accrued during the marriage or civil partnership. These assets result from the joint efforts of both parties. They include property built up together during the marriage or civil partnership.
Non-matrimonial property, on the other hand, is usually defined as assets received or created outside the span of the partnership. This can property gratuitously received from an external source including inheritances or gifts. It also covers assets gained before the marriage or civil partnership, as well as those accumulated post separation.
Whatever the circumstances, advice from a qualified and experienced Solicitor is essential. They help determine which assets the Court will include when dividing finances after a divorce or civil partnership dissolution. They can also guide you on which assets could potentially be excluded.
This content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require advice regarding your relationship, please contact [email protected] or call 0333 240 7373.
About The Author
Paul Summerbell is a Senior Associate Solicitor in our Family Law team based in Eastbourne. Paul has over 20 years’ experience supporting clients in all types of complex family cases. He is particularly experienced in advising high net worth clients in ancillary relief proceedings, often with assets of many millions of pounds.