Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the wife of a wealthy financier was not entitled to half the £78mn he gave her because he had made the money before their marriage, setting a precedent for how divorcing couples divide up their assets.
Clive Standish transferred investments worth £78mn to his wife, Anna Standish, in 2017. The couple married in 2005 and initiated divorce proceedings in 2020.
The original judge in the case had awarded Anna Standish £45mn, which was reduced by the Court of Appeal to £25mn. The Supreme Court has now upheld the £25mn figure.
The main issue of contention in the case has been whether the assets remained the husband’s property, because he had made most of that money before their marriage, or whether they had been “matrimonialised”, and therefore belonged equally to the couple. In that case, Anna Standish’s lawyers argued, they should be divided more evenly on divorce.
The Supreme Court said that because Clive Standish had given the assets to his wife to avoid inheritance tax, thus for the benefit of their children, the couple had never truly shared the assets. This meant the assets were “non-matrimonial property” and therefore should not be divided from an equal starting point, unlike “matrimonial property” — assets earned or gained during and because of the marriage.
In English divorce law, judges have a significant amount of discretion in determining financial settlements, but this case provides greater clarity on how assets should be split. Non-matrimonial property can still be split depending on the financially weaker party’s needs.
Anna Standish was represented in the case by Baroness Fiona Shackleton, a partner at Payne Hicks Beach, who has previously handled divorces for Paul McCartney, Prince Andrew and Prince Charles, now Charles III, in his divorce from Diana, Princess of Wales.
Sam Longworth, a partner at Stewarts, was representing Clive Standish.
Anna Standish’s lawyers had asked the Supreme Court to consider the broader issue of whether “matrimonial property should normally, or presumptively, be shared equally” between spouses. They said there was such “uncertainty” about the division of assets that “judges with vast experience in the field reached such different conclusions.”
