UK – LONDON: PROVENANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Beverley Morris, HCR Law
• As a result, profits increased to GBP450,000 per annum during the marriage. • After their separation, profits continued to rise and handbag sales were predicted to overtake shoe sales. • Rachel received no shares and was neither a direc ‑ tor nor on the payroll. Has Hugo’s shareholding become matrimonialised, such that Rachel should receive a share of its value? Matrimonialisation: why the subject is in the spotlight This issue was examined in a recent decision: Standish v Standish , decided by the Supreme Court on 2 July 2025. The Court considered when non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial and how the sharing principle applies. In simple terms – as applied to ABC – did the shares become matrimonial, and if so, how should they be shared between Rachel and Hugo? The Standish case – background Mr Standish (72) and Mrs Standish (57) married in 2005. He built a highly successful career in financial ser ‑ vices, becoming Chairman and CEO of UBS’s regional division by 1999 and earning AUD11 million annually by 2002. His pre-relationship wealth (circa GBP57 million) included: • financial investments; • an Australian farm of 6,005 hectares; • an Australian company running the farming busi ‑ ness; and • a Melbourne property. They began living together in 2004 and married in December 2005, later having two children. In 2017 – before the marriage broke down – he trans ‑ ferred investments worth GBP77.8 million and some
shares in the farming company to his wife as part of a tax planning scheme. The intention was for her to set up discretionary trusts for the children in Jersey. Draft trust deeds were prepared, but Mrs Standish never created the trusts. By the time the marriage broke down in early 2020, the transferred assets were worth around GBP80 million. She argued these were matrimonial and should be shared. Total assets at divorce were about GBP132 million. The first court decision The judge held that the GBP80 million had become matrimonial property and should be shared. He awarded Mrs Standish GBP45 million – an unequal 60/40 division in her husband’s favour to reflect the “special contribution” he had made. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, ruling that the transferred assets were not transformed into matrimonial property; at least 75% remained non- matrimonial. Mrs Standish’s award was reduced to GBP25 million. She appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. Mrs Standish left the marriage with GBP25 million. What clients need to know: impact of Standish and the relevance of provenance Below, the key points are summarised using the ABC example for context. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal
267 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook