Stewarts partners Sam Longworth and Lucy Stewart-Gould represent Mr Standish in divorce proceedings which led to the largest ever reduction to a divorce award in England and Wales.

In 2024, the Court of Appeal reduced the divorce award of Mrs Standish from £45 million to £25 million (45%) on the basis that the High Court Judge was wrong to decide that the husband’s pre-marital assets had become ‘matrimonialised’ during the marriage and accordingly subject to division between the parties.

On 30 April and 1 May 2025, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will hear the wife’s appeal of that judgment, and her attempts to secure part of the wealth generated by the husband long before the parties met. The Supreme Court will consider the circumstances in which an individual’s non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial property in the context of divorce proceedings, and how the principle of sharing matrimonial property should be applied to such property.

The husband had a highly successful career in the financial services industry and generated the vast majority of his significant asset base prior to the parties’ relationship. Both parties had been married previously. They began cohabitating in 2004, leading into their marriage in 2005. They have two children together and lived in Switzerland and Australia before moving to England in 2010.

The husband retired in 2007. The wife was a homemaker throughout the parties’ relationship. Up until 2017, all of the husband’s wealth, aside from two joint bank accounts and the former matrimonial home (a c.£20m property funded by the husband’s wealth but purchased in the joint names of the parties), was held in his sole name.

In 2017, as part of a tax planning exercise the husband transferred c.£80 million to the wife by agreement with the intention and expectation that the wife would settle the transferred assets into a trust. The wife did not transfer the assets into trust but instead commenced divorce proceedings in April 2020, at which point the husband’s assets remained held in her name.

The wife claimed that the fact the assets were held in her name at the time of the divorce meant they should be shared with her equally notwithstanding their pre-marital origins. Indeed, she asserted that they should be treated as her ‘separate’ property and that they were only available for sharing because she had conceded she was willing to share them with the husband.

The wife appealed and the husband cross appealed. The husband was successful in his appeal. The Court of Appeal determined that the transfer to the wife did not ‘matrimonialise’ the assets and, as a result, reduced her sharing entitlement by 45% to £25m being 50% of the assets which the Court of Appeal found to be matrimonial.

Stewarts instructs Tim Bishop KC, Thomas Harvey and Rebecca Bailey-Harris of 1 Hare Court to represent Mr Standish in the Supreme Court. Giles Richardson KC of Serle Court and Emma Chamberlain OBE of Pump Court Tax Chambers are also instructed by Stewarts in this matter.