Written by Sarah Ingram, Partner and Head of Family Law at Winckworth Sherwood
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 on 2 July 2025 has garnered much interest not only from the UK press but also tax advisers and estate planners for its implications on future wealth planning, in particular in relation to pre-marital assets and inheritances.
Whilst the case arose from the divorce of retired UBS banker, Clive Standish and his second wife, Anna Standish, it is the tax planning of pre–marital assets that took place during the marriage and how the court dealt with those assets and their transfer during the marriage that is of particular interest for lifetime planning generally.
Background
Clive Standish was born in the United Kingdom in 1953. He moved to live in Australia in 1976. Over 35 years, between 1972 and 2007, he had a very successful career in the financial services industry rising to the top of UBS, the multinational investment bank and financial services firm. In 1999, he was appointed Chair and CEO of UBS Asia Pacific and joined the UBS Group Executive Board in 2002. In 2003 he was appointed Chief Financial Officer of UBS Group and consequently had to move to Switzerland that year, which was the same year that he met and began his relationship with his now ex-second wife, Anna.
Anna was born in Australia and had lived there until she met Clive. Anna then moved to live in Switzerland with him in 2004, with her children from her first marriage. By the point of her moving there, Clive had already earned very large sums of money and acquired very considerable wealth.
Clive and Anna married in 2005, and Clive retired from UBS in 2007, but they remained living in Switzerland until 1 July 2008. Clive and Anna had two children together.
The family moved to live in Australia in July 2005 but then purchased a family home in England in 2009 and all moved to live there in 2010. The marriage broke down in early 2020 and the parties separated but remain living in England following the divorce.
Financial Events of 2017
Central to the Supreme Court appeal (and the prior appeal to the Court of Appeal which saw Anna’s initial award reduced by £20m) were assets referred to by the judges as the “2017 Assets” which were a portfolio of investments in the husband’s sole name. By the time of the original trial, those investments were worth £80m.
In around 2016 or 2017, Mr Standish had taken some tax planning advice from a firm over several issues including Inheritance Tax as he was due to become deemed domiciled in this jurisdiction in April 2017. He was worried that, if he died here, his estate would have to pay approximately £32 million in UK IHT. Mrs Standish, on the other hand, was not domiciled in England and Wales. He was advised that, provided he transferred his assets to the wife before he became deemed domiciled, the assets would escape UK IHT.
Mr Standish produced evidence to show that he then intended, once a suitable period of time had elapsed, for Mrs Standish to place the assets in discretionary trusts in Jersey for the benefit of their two children. The wife did not set up the trusts and she continued to hold the 2017 Assets in her sole name at the time of the divorce.
At trial, Mr Standish had argued that those 2017 assets should be returned to him, which was refused by the judge at first instance. However, following cross-appeals by both parties to the Court of Appeal, they decided that the husband was entitled to 75% of the 2017 Assets plus half of 25% of those Assets. This was because only 25% of the 2017 Assets was “matrimonial” that was subject to the sharing and the rest remained “non matrimonial” and not subject to sharing because its provenance had been from before the marriage.
This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Key Takeaways for Advisers
- The importance of intent: the husband in this case transferred the money to his wife with the intention of creating trusts which would have been for the benefit of the children. Whilst the trusts were never in fact then set up, the Supreme Court still found that the assets were never intended as a gift to the wife nor fully integrated into the marriage. Further the transfer would not have been for the benefit of either party to the marriage. This shows the importance of ensuring any tax planning structures, in this case a trust, are properly executed and documented. It is important to be able to demonstrate that the intention is to keep the assets separate and not to have them become part of the matrimonial pot.
- “Non-matrimonial” property is not automatically excluded from division: the Supreme Court reaffirmed in this case that “non-matrimonial” property, such as inheritances or pre-martial wealth are not automatically excluded from division. Advisers should help their clients ringfence non-matrimonial assets and try to avoid intermingling assets as best as they can, unless the intention is to “matrimonialise” the assets, a concept that the Supreme Court also confirmed exists. For example, not transferring money inherited from a parent to a joint bank account which both parties have access to and are able to spend.
- Prenuptial agreements are vital: it is important to encourage clients to enter into prenuptial agreements where there is significant pre-marital wealth or family wealth. This would further demonstrate the intention to keep assets separate and not to matrimonialise them.
Conclusion
Standish v Standish is now a leading authority on the treatment of non-matrimonial property, particularly inheritance, in divorce. It reinforces the principle that fairness does not always mean equality and that the origins and treatment of assets during the marriage are critical in determining financial outcomes. It is also a compliance and risk management lesson for those involved in the private client sector, in terms of protecting pre-marital assets and inherited wealth in the most robust way possible.
