On 2 July the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26. It dealt with the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, and circumstances in which non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property by virtue of ‘matrimonialisation’.  

The key issue was the 2017 transfer of £80m by the husband to the wife. The transfer was part of a scheme to reduce inheritance tax. The money originally formed part of the husband’s non-matrimonial property, although the wife contended that it had become matrimonialised, by virtue of it being placed in her name. She therefore argued that it should be shared equally.  

The Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 567) held that by placing assets in the wife’s name, they did not become matrimonial property and therefore were not subject to the sharing principle. The wife’s appeal to the Supreme Court failed. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s view that the placing of assets in the other party’s name for tax-avoidance purposes does not convert those assets into matrimonial property.

It has long been established that matrimonial property should normally be shared on an equal basis, unless issues of needs or compensation are engaged. The Supreme Court went on to say: ‘Although there can be justified departures from that, equal sharing is the appropriate and principled starting position. Indeed, once non-matrimonial property is excluded, much of the justification for not applying equality in sharing fades away.’