Standish v Standish: Why joined-up thinking is now critical in wealth and family law

The landmark Standish v Standish ruling from the Supreme Court has brought renewed focus to the vital relationship between wealth advisors and both private client and family lawyers’ a joined-up approach can offer both asset protection and long-term relationship security if things go wrong.

 

When Mr Standish transferred £77million of personal assets to his wife, it’s unlikely he predicted how events would unfold. What began as a tax planning exercise evolved into a landmark legal saga.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish UKSC/2024/0089 upheld an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal. It exposed a grey area in matrimonial law: how and when non-matrimonial assets, those generated outside of the marriage, become subject to sharing if there is a divorce or civil partnership dissolution.

For family lawyers and wealth protection advisors, the July 2025 ruling was more than a private dispute; it challenged established assumptions about how wealth is treated in modern marriages, clarifying principles about when resources should be shared.

This case has become a defining example of why estate structuring and family law protections must be developed in tandem.

Why wealth planning fails without family law context

The case shows how estate planning that relies on the strength of a relationship can create long lasting problems. Had Mr Standish implemented legal safeguards, such as a nuptial agreement, alongside his tax and estate planning strategy, it may have been easier to evidence that the transferred assets were not intended for sharing on divorce.
Commonplace wealth planning strategies include gifting funds, transferring assets, creating Family Investment Companies (FICs) and discretionary trusts. But these only deliver value if aligned with the goals of those involved and able to withstand scrutiny in divorce. Without input from both wealth and family advisors, families risk uncertainty, litigation, and dilution of wealth intended for future generations.

Bringing both sets of advisors in early isn’t a luxury – it’s essential. The cost of failing to implement safeguards, or delaying them, is always greater than the cost of proactive preparation.

Tax efficiency doesn’t mean divorce safety

What is tax-smart is not always divorce-safe. That’s one of the key lessons from Standish v Standish.

Even when wealth is transferred from one spouse or civil partner to another for legitimate tax reasons, family courts can repurpose those transfers in financial remedy proceedings – unless they are clearly ring-fenced, and steps are put in place to offer protection through pre and/or post nuptial agreements.

Just because an asset is held in one spouse’s name – for example, to utilise non-dom tax status – doesn’t automatically prevent it from being treated as shared in a divorce. Whether an asset is shared depends on its origin, the intention behind the transfer, and how it was treated during the relationship.

This case reinforces that family and wealth lawyers must collaborate at the point of planning – not once a relationship has broken down.

Substance over structure: a legal lesson from Standish

The Supreme Court affirmed that courts assess substance over form. In this case, it found that both the structure and the substantive treatment of the assets supported Mr Standish’s position.
On paper, the assets had been transferred to Mrs Standish. No trust had been created, and there was no nuptial agreement. Legally, they were hers.

But in practice, the funds had originated from her husband’s pre-marriage resources. They had not been mingled with joint accounts or ’dipped into’ for family purposes. They remained untouched, intended to fund future inheritance for their children.

The court ultimately agreed that these were not shared marital assets. However, proving that point took years of litigation and cost millions – an outcome likely avoidable had appropriate marital agreements been in place.

Emotional foresight is the overlooked asset protector

Assets are often caught up in the emotional fallout of marital breakdown. True protection means anticipating not just financial risk but personal change.

Wealth planning advisors help safeguard capital. Family lawyers help plan for relationship change. Only together can they offer holistic protection that reflects both life events as well as tax and investment risk.

In Standish v Standish, the absence of a marital agreement left Mr Standish exposed. He ultimately avoided financial loss due to evidential factors, but his position would have been significantly stronger had pre- or post-nuptial agreements been in place. Marital agreements that align with the broader financial strategy can provide vital protection.

Clients often assume legal title or control is enough. This case demonstrates that, in family law, those assumptions collapse without agreements that support wealth strategies.

Marital agreements and financial structures must tell one consistent story. If not aligned, courts may see inconsistencies between form and intent – opening the door to challenge.

Wealth structuring and relationship planning must go hand in hand

Standish v Standish is more than a cautionary tale for high-net-worth families – it’s a definitive reminder that wealth structuring and relationship planning must go hand in hand. For today’s family lawyers and private wealth advisors, collaboration is no longer optional. To future-proof our clients’ positions, we must work together from the outset, building strategies that are tax efficient, legally resilient and emotionally intelligent.

The stakes are too high to do anything less.

 

Fiona Turner is Partner in family law, and Richard Bate is a Partner and Head of Private Wealth at national law firm Weightmans