Supreme Court’s Ruling in Standish v Standish: Implications for Wealth Planning and Divorce Settlements

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, delivered on July 2, 2025, has captured widespread attention from legal experts, tax advisers, and estate planners. This case highlights critical considerations for wealth management, particularly concerning pre-marital assets and inheritances during divorce proceedings.

Background of the Case

Profile of Clive Standish

Clive Standish, a prominent figure in the financial world, was born in the UK in 1953 before relocating to Australia in 1976. Over a 35-year career, he ascended to notable positions at UBS, one of the leading investment banks globally. By 2003, Standish was appointed Chief Financial Officer for UBS Group, leading him to move to Switzerland, where he would meet his second wife, Anna.

The Relationship and Marriage

Anna, originally from Australia, moved to Switzerland in 2004 with her children from her previous marriage to be with Clive. The couple married in 2005, and they had two children together. Despite settling down in Australia in 2005 and later moving to England in 2010, their marriage ended in separation in early 2020, leading to legal proceedings regarding asset division.

The Financial Events of 2017

A central issue in the Supreme Court case was the so-called “2017 Assets,” a substantial investment portfolio valued at £80 million, held solely by Clive Standish. To mitigate the potential tax burden from Inheritance Tax (IHT) upon becoming deemed domiciled in the UK, Clive sought advice from a taxation firm prior to his IHT liability in April 2017.

He was informed that transferring assets to Anna before his deemed domiciliation would exempt them from UK IHT. Standish intended for Anna to place these assets in discretionary trusts for their children, although these trusts were never established, resulting in the assets remaining in Anna’s name during the divorce.

Initially, the trial judge denied Clive’s request to reclaim these assets. However, the Court of Appeal later ruled that Clive was entitled to 75% of the 2017 Assets, reflecting that only a portion was deemed “matrimonial.”

Key Takeaways for Tax Advisers and Estate Planners

Importance of Intent in Asset Transfer

The Supreme Court emphasized that intent is crucial in asset planning. Clive’s objective was to place the 2017 Assets into trusts for their children’s benefit. Although the trusts were not created, the Court found that the assets were never actually intended as a gift to Anna. This highlights the significance of properly documenting and executing tax planning strategies to segregate assets from marital property.

Non-Matrimonial Property in Divorce

Another pivotal outcome was the confirmation that “non-matrimonial” property, such as inheritances or pre-marital assets, is not automatically shielded from division during a divorce. Advisers must guide clients on maintaining the separation of these assets to avoid their intermingling, unless there’s an intention to treat them as marital property.

The Vital Role of Prenuptial Agreements

Given the complexity surrounding non-matrimonial assets, legal professionals should advocate for prenuptial agreements, especially when clients possess significant pre-marital wealth. Such agreements clarify intent regarding asset separation and provide a robust legal backbone during potential divorce proceedings.

Conclusion

The Standish v Standish ruling is now a critical reference for understanding the treatment of non-matrimonial property in divorce cases. It underscores that achieving fairness in asset division doesn’t necessitate equality, especially when the origins and treatment of assets during the marriage play a significant role in legal determinations. The case also serves as a cautionary tale for legal and financial professionals regarding the protection of pre-marital and inherited wealth.

For those engaged in wealth planning and family law, the implications of this case cannot be understated. The importance of clear intentions, proper documentation, and the preparation of prenuptial agreements are now more crucial than ever in safeguarding assets in the context of marital arrangements.

Sarah Ingram is a Partner and the Head of Family Law at Winckworth Sherwood.

This comprehensive analysis of the Standish v Standish case not only informs potential clients and legal practitioners but also establishes a framework for robust wealth planning in light of evolving jurisprudence.