An ex-banker who gave his wife £78m will not have to split it equally with her after their divorce, according to a supreme court ruling that experts say sets a precedent for dividing up assets after a marriage ends.
In 2017, before their divorce, Clive Standish, 72, transferred investments worth £77.8m to his wife, Anna, as part of a tax planning scheme. These assets had originally been Clive’s non-matrimonial property, the court was told.
The couple married in 2005 – this was the second marriage for both – and have two children together. However, the marriage broke down in 2020.
In 2022, a high court judge split the family’s total wealth of £132m by awarding Clive £87m and Anna £45m. The former challenged this decision at the court of appeal, arguing that the majority of the money, including the transferred assets, was earned before they began living together.
Last year, court of appeal judges assessed that 75% of the near-£80m had been earned prior to the marriage and cut Anna’s share to £25m.
The supreme court has now upheld the £25m figure after five justices unanimously agreed that because most of the sum of money had been earned prior to the marriage, Clive was entitled to keep the largest share.
The landmark judgment might involve the super-wealthy but is “relevant to everyone”, said family lawyer Caroline Holley, partner at law firm Farrer & Co.
The law firm Stewarts, which represented retired banker Clive in the case, said: “Divorcing couples across England and Wales now have clearer guidance on how their assets will be categorised upon divorce.”
Legal experts suggested the judgment could increase demand among couples for prenuptial and postnuptial agreements as a way of protecting people’s interests if it all goes wrong later.
Clive Standish, being domiciled in the UK, was worried about paying millions in inheritance tax if he died with the assets in his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens explained in their ruling on Wednesday.
They said: “In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax, and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children, not the wife.
“The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them.”
Clive Standish expected his wife to use the money to set up two offshore trusts, but she did not do that and remained the sole owner of the assets when legal action began, the court heard.
Chris Lloyd-Smith, a partner in the matrimonial team at law firm Anthony Collins, said: “With the judgment being in favour of Mr Standish, the court has set a precedent of firmer boundaries between personal and shared wealth.”
He said “the most important takeaway” was that transparent financial planning in relationships was crucial. “When it comes to managing expectations and reducing legal uncertainty, pre- and postnuptial agreements that are reviewed regularly are important tools to divide and protect assets with clarity. This way, you protect yourself and set your own terms, instead of relying on a court decision.”