What Standish v Standish means for 1975 Act spousal claims

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous verdict in the case of Standish v Standish, clarifying the stance taken by the courts when assessing matrimonial assets during divorce proceedings. This will also have an impact on how spousal claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) are assessed.

Background

The case concerned divorce proceedings between Mr Standish and Mrs Standish, who had been married for 15 years and had two children together.

Mr Standish retired in 2007 after a successful career in financial services, through which he had acquired valuable investment funds. These funds were valued at £57 million in 2004 before the couple began living together and had increased to £80 million by the date of the hearing in the High Court in 2022. In contrast, Mrs Standish had been a homemaker throughout the relationship and had modest pre-marital assets. The total asset pool was valued at £132.6 million.

Up until 2017, all of Mr Standish’s wealth – apart from two joint bank accounts and the former matrimonial home (valued at c.£20 million) – were held in his sole name. In 2017, Mr Standish transferred £77 million to Mrs Standish for tax planning purposes, with the intention that she would transfer the funds into discretionary trusts for the benefit of their two children. However, Mrs Standish did not transfer the funds to the trust and instead commenced divorce proceedings.

Decisions

High Court

Points of dispute: Mrs Standish argued that the £77 million was a gift and formed part of her separate property as it was in her sole name. She claimed that the funds were only available for sharing as a result of her conceding that she was willing to do so.

Decision: The Court ruled that the £77 million transfer to Mrs Standish resulted in the funds becoming matrimonialised, bringing the total matrimonial assets to £112.6 million. However, the Court noted that the pre-marital source of the assets remained relevant. Accordingly, the Court ordered an unequal 60/40 split of the matrimonial assets in Mr Standish’s favour, awarding £45 million to Mrs Standish.

Court of Appeal

Points of dispute: Mrs Standish appealed the decision on the basis that the transfer had completely matrimonialised the investment funds, providing her with entitlement to an equal share. Mr Standish cross- appealed on the basis that the Court had given insignificant weight to the non-matrimonial source of the funds and the intended purpose of the transfer.

Decision: The Court of Appeal dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal and allowed the cross-appeal from Mr Standish, finding that the transfer had not led to matrimonialisation. The High Court had placed too much weight on the title to the funds rather than the source and had overvalued the matrimonial assets. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that only £20 million of the transferred funds was marital, representing the short period Mr Standish continued to work during the marriage. This decreased the total marital assets to £50 million with Mrs Standish being entitled to 50% of this (ie, £25million). Appealing and losing had therefore cost Mrs Standish £20 million.

Supreme Court

Points of dispute: Mrs Standish appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision on the basis it had wrongly concluded that the transfer had not led to matrimonialisation. She argued that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider that the transfer was a gift during marriage.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld and expanded upon the Court of Appeal’s decision, dismissing Mrs Standish’s appeal on the basis that the 2017 transfer did not matrimonialise the investment funds.

Key takeaways

• Property transferred for the purpose of mitigating tax will not be matrimonial – Assets transferred on this basis will only be matrimonial if there is further compelling evidence that the parties intended to share the assets.
  
  
• For assets to be matrimonialised, the court must find:
  • evidence that the asset was treated as matrimonial.
  • that this was the settled intention.
  • that it remained so for a significant length of time.
• Title does not determine whether or not property is matrimonial – It is the source and nature of the property that will determine whether or not it is matrimonial. Title to the property is important but will not be the determining factor.
  
  
• Non-matrimonial property is not subject to the sharing principle – Although the court has adopted this approach already, the decision provides confirmation of this principle.
  
  
• Matrimonial property should be shared equally – Sharing should start on the basis of equality, but the court has discretion to make a “justified departure” where necessary. However, the judgment stops short of providing examples.

Impact on spousal claims under the 1975 Act

When deciding spousal awards under the 1975 Act, the court has to consider the divorce cross check – which allows the court to hypothetically consider the award that would have been made had the deceased and surviving spouse divorced. Consequently, the decision in Standish could have the following effects:

• Increased scrutiny of the source and nature of assets rather than the title – The parties will need to consider the assets owned by the deceased and surviving spouse prior to their marriage and whether any assets held by either spouse prior to marriage were ringfenced, despite later being transferred into the sole ownership of the other spouse.
  
  
• Changes to sums awarded under the 1975 Act – The increased scrutiny could result in significant changes to the size of the hypothetical pool of assets deemed available on divorce. As a result, this could impact the court’s assessment of the appropriate sum to award a surviving spouse under the 1975 Act.
  
  
• An increase in needs-based claims – As the court has clarified that non-matrimonial property is not subject to the sharing principle, there could be an increase in needs-based claims in an attempt to gain entitlement to this otherwise excluded property.

However, it’s important to note that, as established in Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012], the divorce cross check is not determinative, meaning that the 1975 Act court may depart from the principles under Standish. Therefore, it remains the position that the court will ultimately make spousal awards under the 1975 Act that constitute reasonable financial provision in all circumstances.