Standing by Standish – how the courts are considering non-matrimonial property after Standish v Standish
Following the landmark Supreme Court case of Standish v Standish last year, the recent case of RRE v JPR [2026] EWFC 7 provides a clear illustration of how the courts are now focussing on the source, intention and treatment of assets accrued from beyond the parties’ marital endeavour. Whilst the duty to provide full and frank disclosure of all assets, including those of a non-matrimonial nature, remains; the court will look behind the legal title of non-matrimonial assets to truly consider whether they have been matrimonialised and should therefore be available for sharing.
Key takes from Standish v Standish
The sharing principle only applies to matrimonial property
The Supreme Court confirmed that the sharing principle will only apply to those assets generated through joint endeavour during the marriage. Non-matrimonial property falls outside of this and is not available for sharing but can still be used to meet needs.
Distinction of what non-matrimonial property is
Matrimonial property consists of the assets built up by parties during their marriage; either through income, businesses activities or other family endeavour.
Non-Matrimonial property includes assets bought into the marriage by a party and those acquired from outside sources such as gifts and inheritance.
Legal title is not decisive
Even if a non-matrimonial asset has been transferred into the other spouse’s name, it is not conclusive evidence of that asset being matrimonialised and does not automatically change the nature of the asset. What matters is how the parties treated that asset over time.
Matrimonialisation requires intention or treatment
Non-matrimonial assets may only become matrimonial if the parties have treated the asset as shared over a period of time and their treatment of the asset shows an intention for it to be considered marital.
Transfers between spouses for tax-planning purpose do not necessarily mean that the funds have been matrimonialised
This also includes transfers between the children. Evidence of the advice received and treatment of the funds post-transfer will be crucial to determining this.
Impact of Standish in RRE v JPR
The parties in this case had been married for c.20 years and had one child together. The Husband had three children from a previous relationship. Whilst the parties’ earned well during the marriage, a large proportion of the Husband’s wealth had been accrued as a result of inherited shares in a bank that was started by his ancestors originally in Germany and then America. He also received significant payments from the German government following restitutionary claims against them after his grandfather died following a brutal interrogation by the Nazi governor which provoked the family to flee Germany and sell the original bank at a fraction of it’s true value. Both non-matrimonial sources of wealth.
A trust was created in 1998 to benefit the husband, wife and their children. In 2007, in anticipation of a partial sale of the bank in America, it was agreed that the shares held by the husband’s late mother should be passed to the husband and his 3 siblings. The shares were transferred into the trust and later subject to a number of sales and distributes. The Wife received significant sums from the trust during this period and the court was required to undertake a significant enquiry into how those had been utilised.
The husband had taken tax advice in 2010-2012 to understand the most tax efficient way for the shares (or their proceeds of sale) to be distributed to the husband and his siblings. The advice was that distributions should be made from the trust to the wife and then she should gift the husband’s siblings their share of the shares/proceeds.
The wife sought to argue after their separation that:
- The sums distributed out of the Trust to her were, after payment to H’s siblings, a gift to her;
- They were gifted after separation for no good tax saving reason;
- In any event, H had received from the trust as much as she retained;
- Under her stewardship, the funds that she now has have significantly increased as a result of her good management of them;
- And as a result, that if the funds in her name were to be treated as matrimonialised rather than her separate property, she should receive the bulk of them.
The Judge rejected all of these arguments. He found that the assets placed in the wife’s name were for tax planning and there were communications with the husband’s tax advisor which made no suggestion from either husband or wife that the funds belonged beneficially to the wife nor that they had been gifted to her. The judge found that the sums transferred into the trust and/or paid out to W were not treated by the husband and wife as shared between them, let alone treated as the wife’s alone. They remained the husband’s non-matrimonial funds. Helpfully, the Judge set out the facts he found particularly relevant when determining this:
- It is agreed that the provenance of the funds was non-matrimonial;
- The funds were placed in W’s name for what was thought to be good tax planning reasons;
- The funds remained managed by the husband and their tax advisor albeit copying in W, at least until proceedings started;
- Despite the parties separating, the management of their finances did not change, reflecting their continued harmony;
- The funds have remained intact with W only drawing upon the income;
- There was no material change as to the use or investment of the funds after being placed in W’s name;
- There was no documentary evidence and no oral evidence upon which the Judge could rely that ownership of the fund was ever gifted by H to W.
There are several other issues dealt with in this case including disclosure, reliability of the witnesses and issues regarding a fund set aside for the parties’ daughter.
The full judgment can be found here – RRE v JPR [2026] EWFC 7
