{"id":5268,"date":"2025-08-07T09:51:55","date_gmt":"2025-08-07T09:51:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/?p=5268"},"modified":"2025-08-13T14:42:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T14:42:31","slug":"clarifying-matrimonial-and-non-matrimonial-property-the-standish-case-standish-v-standish-2-july-2025-2025-uksc-26","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/?p=5268","title":{"rendered":"Clarifying Matrimonial and Non Matrimonial Property, the Standish Case – Standish v Standish 2 July 2025 [2025] UKSC 26"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The two questions answered by the case of Standish are when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonial property? And how is the \u2018sharing principle\u2019 applied to such property in financial remedy proceedings? \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The factual background, as is often the position in financial remedy cases, that ascend to the Court of Appeal and beyond, relates to a large capital pot and falls firmly into the category of \u2018big money cases.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Facts\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

The parties were married in 2005. The H was 72 and the W was 57 at the date of the appeal. There were two children of the marriage. Both parties were previously married. They separated in 2020. There were substantial assets including the family home valued at \u00a321.6m. The nub of the appeal issue was that H transferred to W, towards the end of the marriage, \u00a377.8m as part of a tax planning scheme. The purpose of the transfer being found to establish a Trust for the benefit of the two children of the marriage. The provenance of those assets were the H\u2019s and were accepted to be non- matrimonial at source. The trial Judge divided the matrimonial property, which included the 2017 monies, 60:40 in the H\u2019s favour to reflect his unmatched capital contribution. The W was awarded \u00a345m. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal allowed the H\u2019s cross appeal. Held: the 2017 transfer of \u00a377.8m to W did not become matrimonial property and the W\u2019s award was reduced to \u00a325m. The W appealed to the Supreme Court, she maintained that the 2017 transfer was essentially a gift and the COA was in error in failing to recognise this and that it was wrong to conclude that those assets remained non-matrimonial property. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Principles\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

It is important to emphasise that in many cases there is insufficient capital and income to meet needs. In the event that needs are not met by the matrimonial assets, the court will look to non- matrimonial assets to meet those needs and this is principle was established in the cases of S v S [2014] EWHC 4732(Fam); X v C [2022] EWFC 79. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Application of the Sharing Principle\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

There is a distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and the application of distinguishing them is the important preliminary exercise in any case. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Generally, assets which either spouse owned prior to the marriage or they have been gifted or inherited during the course of the marriage are non-matrimonial. These are not subject to the sharing principle (the principles of need and compensation fall within the exceptions). <\/span><\/p>\n

Assets which have been acquired or earned during the course of the marriage are often regarded as matrimonial in specie and are often referred to as \u2018the fruits of the marriage.\u2019 <\/span><\/p>\n

The principle relating to matrimonial assets is that they are subject to the sharing principle and the starting point may be equal sharing but this does not necessarily follow and is subject to the facts. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the principle of matrimonialisation may apply to assets and this is where an asset has started off life as non-matrimonial but during the course of the marriage has become a marital asset by virtue of its treatment, this is subject to degree. The Supreme Court made plain the following: \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The concept of matrimonialisation should not be treated narrowly [52]:<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u2018 \u2026what is important \u2026 is to consider 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. \u2018\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The sharing principle must be \u2018tied back\u2019 to seeking a fair outcome. [54] <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      iii. The pragmatic exercise of assessing whether the matrimonial property is so much greater than the non- matrimonial property that:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \u2026.. it is unfair to the parties- to try to work out what percentage was nonmatrimonial. Fairness (in saving needless expense) demands that one should instead simply treat it all as matrimonial property.\u2019 [55]<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The transfer of property into the name of one or both of the parties to the marriage did not render the asset matrimonialised. [56]<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Tina Harrington\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        Georgia Taylor (Mini Pupil)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        Trinity Chambers July 2025<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        The two questions answered by the case of Standish are when does non-matrimonial property become matrimonial property? And how is the \u2018sharing principle\u2019 applied to such property in financial remedy proceedings? \u00a0 The factual background, as is often the position in financial remedy cases, that ascend to the Court of Appeal and beyond, relates to a large capital pot and falls firmly into the category of \u2018big money cases.\u2019 The Facts\u00a0 The parties were married in 2005. The H was 72 and the W was 57 at the date of the appeal. There were two children of the marriage. Both parties were previously married. They separated in 2020. There were substantial assets including the family home valued at \u00a321.6m. The nub of the appeal issue was that H transferred to W, towards the end of the marriage, \u00a377.8m as part of a tax planning scheme. The purpose of the transfer being found to establish a Trust for the benefit of the two children of the marriage. The provenance of those assets were the H\u2019s and were accepted to be non- matrimonial at source. The trial Judge divided the matrimonial property, which included the 2017 monies, 60:40 in the H\u2019s favour to reflect his unmatched capital contribution. The W was awarded \u00a345m. The Court of Appeal allowed the H\u2019s cross appeal. Held: the 2017 transfer of \u00a377.8m to W did not become matrimonial property and the W\u2019s award was reduced to \u00a325m. The W appealed to the Supreme Court, she maintained that the 2017 transfer was essentially a gift and the COA was in error in failing to recognise this and that it was wrong to conclude that those assets remained non-matrimonial property. The Principles\u00a0 It is important to emphasise that in many cases there is insufficient capital and income to meet needs. In the event that needs are not met by the matrimonial assets, the court will look to non- matrimonial assets to meet those needs and this is principle was established in the cases of S v S [2014] EWHC 4732(Fam); X v C [2022] EWFC 79. \u00a0 The Application of the Sharing Principle\u00a0 There is a distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property and the application of distinguishing them is the important preliminary exercise in any case. \u00a0 Generally, assets which either spouse owned prior to the marriage or they have been gifted or inherited during the course of the marriage are non-matrimonial. These are not subject to the sharing principle (the principles of need and compensation fall within the exceptions). Assets which have been acquired or earned during the course of the marriage are often regarded as matrimonial in specie and are often referred to as \u2018the fruits of the marriage.\u2019 The principle relating to matrimonial assets is that they are subject to the sharing principle and the starting point may be equal sharing but this does not necessarily follow and is subject to the facts. Finally, the principle of matrimonialisation may apply to assets and this is where an asset has started off life as non-matrimonial but during the course of the marriage has become a marital asset by virtue of its treatment, this is subject to degree. The Supreme Court made plain the following: \u00a0 The concept of matrimonialisation should not be treated narrowly [52]: \u2018 \u2026what is important \u2026 is to consider 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. \u2018\u00a0 The sharing principle must be \u2018tied back\u2019 to seeking a fair outcome. [54] iii. The pragmatic exercise of assessing whether the matrimonial property is so much greater than the non- matrimonial property that: \u2026.. it is unfair to the parties- to try to work out what percentage was nonmatrimonial. Fairness (in saving needless expense) demands that one should instead simply treat it all as matrimonial property.\u2019 [55] The transfer of property into the name of one or both of the parties to the marriage did not render the asset matrimonialised. [56] Tina Harrington\u00a0 Georgia Taylor (Mini Pupil)\u00a0 Trinity Chambers July 2025<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5275,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[249],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5268"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5311,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5268\/revisions\/5311"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/5275"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sherylperrysolicitors.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}