The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in Standish v Standish has landed - and it marks a pivotal moment. At its core were two deceptively simple yet deeply contentious questions: when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonial and when, and to what extent, should non-matrimonial property be subject to the sharing principle?

Under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, judges are afforded broad discretion to achieve a fair financial outcome on divorce. Over time, three guiding principles have emerged to shape that discretion: needs, compensation, and sharing. While the needs principle has often dominated in practice, Standish placed the sharing principle - and its application to non-matrimonial assets - firmly under the spotlight. 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the conceptual distinction between matrimonial property (typically the fruits of the marriage partnership) and non-matrimonial property (such as pre-marital assets, inheritances, or gifts acquired independently). That distinction, it held, remains central to the fair application of the sharing principle.

Mr Standish brought substantial pre-marital wealth into the marriage. In 2017, following estate and tax planning advice, he transferred investments worth approximately £77.8m (later valued at £80m) to his wife, with the intention of establishing trusts to mitigate inheritance tax. The marriage subsequently broke down, and the trusts were never created. Crucially, the investments were acquired by Mr Standish before the marriage. Mrs Standish argued that the transfer of the investments to her had “matrimonialised” the assets, bringing them within the scope of the sharing principle.

In a unanimous decision delivered by Lords Burrows and Stephens, the Supreme Court dismissed Mrs Standish’s appeal and held:

1. In assessing whether an asset has become matrimonial or not, “it is the parties treatment of what was initially non-matrimonial property, over time, as shared between them, that is central in deciding the fairness of that property being viewed as matrimonialised”. 
2. A transfer made solely for tax planning purposes does not, in itself, convert non-matrimonial property into matrimonial property.
3. The sharing principle does not apply to non-matrimonial property.

Standish halts the gradual expansion of the sharing principle into non-matrimonial territory and reasserts the importance of origin and contribution. As ever, the practical impact will unfold in the detail of future first-instance decisions. But for now, Standish stands as a landmark judgment - one that will shape financial remedy practice for years to come.