ENGLAND & WALES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alex Carruthers, Oliver Heeks and Sian Brooks, Hughes Fowler Carruthers
• The matrimonial assets were assessed to be GBP112,631,062, comprising assets that formed part of the matrimonial acquest and those that were matrimonalised by the tax- planning exercise. Owing to the “magnetic” factor of the case, which was the premarital origin of most of this sum, Mr Justice Moor decided that an appropriate division of mat - rimonial assets was 40% to Anna Standish (equating to an overall share of 34%). iii) Grounds of appeal Anna Standish appealed on two grounds, as fol - lows. • Mr Justice Moor had been incorrect in label - ling the 2017 assets as matrimonial and they should be Anna Standish’s separate property. Anna Standish’s overarching case was that “title or ownership is the critical factor in the exercise of the court’s powers under Part II of the Matrimonal Causes Act 1973 in the appli - cation of the sharing principle”. • The property at Ardenside should be declared a matrimonial asset and shared equally, as the parties had holidayed there and improved the property during the marriage. Anna Standish submitted that, notwithstand - ing the non-matrimonial nature of the 2017 assets, they should be shared equally to reflect the nature of the marriage. Accordingly, Anna Standish argued that her award should be increased from GBP45 million to GBP66 million. Clive Standish cross-appealed on two grounds, as follows. • The judge was wrong to find Ardenside Angus and the 2017 assets as matrimonial prop - erty. Clive Standish argued that the source
of the asset was the critical factor in identify - ing assets subject to the sharing principle. Regarding matrimonalisation, Clive Standish argued that the concept should be applied cautiously and conservatively. • Clive Standish’s second ground was that – even if the 2017 assets were deemed to be matrimonial property – Mr Justice Moor’s dis - tribution was wrong, as it did not factor in the scale of Clive Standish’s unmatched contribu - tion of premarital wealth. Clive Standish submitted that Anna Standish should receive GBP25 million to meet her rea - sonable needs, with the balance transferred to him. iv) Court of appeal decision The court of appeal held the following. • The source of the asset is the critical factor in the application of the sharing principle. • The concept of matrimonalisation should be applied narrowly. Moylan LJ reformulated the categories listed by Wilson LJ in K v L (2011) EWCA Civ 550, where the source of an asset may diminish over time, to the following: (a) the percentage of the parties’ assets (or of an asset), which were or which might be said to comprise or reflect the product of non-marital endeavour, is not suffi - ciently significant to justify an evidential investigation and/or an other than equal division of the wealth; (b) the extent to which and the manner in which non-matrimonial property has been mixed with matrimonial property mean that, in fairness, it should be included within the sharing principle; and (c) non-marital property has been used in the purchase of the former matrimonial
138 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook