Matrimonialisation: legal title to asset does not determine if it is a matrimonial asset

In financial proceedings on divorce, it’s not uncommon for the parties to disagree as to whether a specific asset should be included in the matrimonial ‘pot’. The landmark Supreme Court ruling in Standish has provided much-needed clarity on when a marital asset has been treated by the parties as being ‘matrimonalised’ and available for division. If you’ve never heard of matrimonialisation – we are not surprised. It’s a new term coined to refer to certain types of asset in the course of financial proceedings.

What is ‘matrimonalisation’?

The established starting point for dividing the assets on divorce is an equal split (the ‘sharing principle’). It also has to be determined whether any other asset, such as one party’s inheritance or a gift should be added to the total amount for division. Matrimonalisation is a legal concept by which a non-matrimonial asset is to be treated in law as a matrimonial asset and, therefore, available for division. It is a concept already recognised in some cases and this case firmly solidifies it.

Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26

Standish was a very high value case but lays down important principles for future cases where there is a dispute concerning pre-marital assets. Clive Standish, now 72, had accumulated significant wealth while working for many years in the financial sector, before marrying his wife, Anna, in 2005. He retired in 2007. When the marriage broke down in 2020 the parties’ combined assets were worth around £132m. The assets in dispute included a 2017 transfer of £80m of investment funds from Clive’s sole name to Anna as part of a tax planning scheme. The key question for the court was whether the transfer amounted to matrimonalisation of the funds. If the funds had been matrimonalised, Anna – whose own assets were relatively low - would be entitled to a share of them. The Supreme Court carefully considered the concept of matrimonalisation and went on to set out important guidance:

1. There is a conceptual distinction between matrimonial property (eg comprising the “fruits” of the marriage or “the product of the parties’ common endeavour”); and non-matrimonial property (ie that which one party brings into the marriage, or is externally acquired). In general terms, the distinction turns on the source of the asset, not its legal ownership
2. Non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle
3. The starting point is that matrimonial property should be shared on an equal basis, subject to a justified departure from the sharing principle
4. What starts as non-matrimonial property could become matrimonial property by being ‘matrimonialised’. Whether, on the facts, that transformation has occurred, the important considering is whether the parties had treated the asset as shared between them over time
5. The context of the facts of the case are important. In cases such as Standish, a transfer of an asset between spouses in a tax-saving scheme will not normally show the asset is being treated as shared between them

Without any compelling evidence to show the investment funds transferred to her name had been treated as shared, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that they had been matrimonialised. The value of the transfer represented about 75% of the total assets. Anna’s entitlement was limited to a relatively low £25m out of a combined £132m – but that was considered a fair outcome in the circumstances.

What does this mean?

The decision clarifies that where there is disagreement, it is the source of the asset rather than legal title to it – and how it has been treated - that determines whether it has been matrimonalised. For expert advice on financial matters on divorce, contact Sian Kenkre on 01527 831691 or email sian.kenkre@mfgsolicitors.com. Alternatively, complete our contact form here and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.