ENGLAND & WALES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alex Carruthers, Oliver Heeks and Sian Brooks, Hughes Fowler Carruthers
only, such as assets acquired prior to the mar - riage or by inheritance or gift. The matrimonalisation of assets refers to the process whereby assets that were once non- matrimonial “become part of the economic life of [the] marriage” (Mostyn J, JL v SL (No 2) ECHC 555 (Fam) (2015)) and thereby become matrimo - nial property. The concept is a nebulous one and a source of debate among family practitioners. Standish v Standish In 2024, the court of appeal’s decision in Standish v Standish (2024) EWCA Civ 567 became the new leading authority on the sharing principle and how to deal with the matrimonalisation of assets. The case also clarifies that it is the source of an asset – and not the legal title – that will be the critical factor in determining the status of matrimonial property. The judgment deals with the following two issues identified in both parties’ cross-appeals: • how the financial remedy court identifies assets that are subject to the sharing princi - ple; and • once these assets have been identified, how the sharing principle is applied. i) Facts of the case The parties began their relationship in 2003, married in Australia in 2005 and relocated to the UK in 2010 – whereupon they moved into their recently acquired property (the “family home”), which was purchased for approximately GBP9.6 million in 2008. The parties separated in 2020. Clive Standish, a former chief financial officer at global investment bank UBS, had obtained significant wealth. He owned a successful farm -
ing business (Ardenside Angus), which he pur - chased in 2002. In 2017, two key events happened. These deci - sions were made as part of Clive Standish’s tax planning. • Clive Standish transferred GBP77 million worth of investment funds (“the 2017 assets”) into his wife (Anna Standish)’s name. It was intended that these funds would be then transferred into vehicles for the benefit of Clive Standish’s children. Unfortunately for him, the divorce proceedings intervened before this step took place. • Anna Standish was issued shares in Arden - side Angus. Total assets between the parties were found to be GBP132 million. ii) First-instance decision – ARQ v YAQ (2022) EWFC 128 The final hearing took place in May 2022 at the High Court before Mr Justice Moor. In summary, Mr Justice Moor’s findings were as follows. • Ardenside Angus was not matrimonalised, as it was premarital and had remained the same throughout the marriage. • The family home was matrimonial property, owing to the central role it occupied in the marriage. • Mr Justice Moor rejected Anna Standish’s argument that the investment funds became her separate property and found that they were matrimonial property. • The shares in the farming business also became matrimonial property as a result of placing them into Anna Standish’s name.
137 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook