02 Jul When Is a Gift Not a Gift? Supreme Court Ruling

When Is a Gift Not Really a Gift?

02.07.2025

The Supreme Court Decides on Pre-Marital and Inherited Wealth in Divorce

On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that could change how divorcing couples, particularly wealthy ones, approach pre-marital and inherited assets. The case, Standish v Standish, centred on a former UBS banker, a substantial fortune, and the question of whether a gift during marriage was really meant to be shared.

This wasn’t just any divorce. It involved a staggering ~£78 million transferred from husband to wife in 2017, during what seemed to be a stable marriage. But as we’ll see, the reasons behind that transfer and what happened next, tell us a lot about how the courts treat property that wasn’t built together during the marriage.

Let’s look at what happened.

The Background: A Strategic Gift or a Shared Fortune?

Clive Standish was already an extremely wealthy man before he married Anna in 2005. He had retired from UBS in 2007, and by 2017, he was thinking about estate planning. That year, Clive transferred a portfolio of investments worth around £78 million into Anna’s name. The purpose, he claimed, was to reduce inheritance tax by setting up trusts for their children.

But those trusts were never created.

Three years later, in 2020, Anna filed for divorce. At that point, Clive’s “gift” became the centrepiece of the financial dispute. Was this £78 million transfer a genuine gift to Anna, now hers to keep and share? Or was it merely a tax-efficient step that didn’t change the fact that this was Clive’s personal, non-marital wealth?

The Legal Battle: Three Courts, Three Years

In 2022, the High Court ruled in Anna’s favour. The judge decided that the £78 million had become part of the couple’s shared matrimonial assets. Anna was awarded £45 million, just over half of what had been transferred to her.

But Clive appealed and in May 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision. The court found that although the money had been transferred to Anna’s name, it hadn’t lost its character as pre-marital, non-matrimonial property. There had been no trust set up, no joint use of the funds, and no clear intention to share them as part of the marital partnership. The award to Anna was reduced to £25 million, primarily to meet her financial needs rather than as a share of the wealth.

Anna appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. On 2 July 2025, the UK’s highest court upheld the Court of Appeal’s view. Clive’s £78 million remained non-matrimonial, meaning Anna had no right to a full share, even though it was in her name.

So What Does This All Mean?

The Standish case provides important guidance on how courts treat non-matrimonial property, that is, money or assets that came from outside the marriage, such as pre-marital wealth, inheritances, or gifts.

Here’s what we’ve learned from this judgment:

1. The Source of the Wealth Matters Most

Just because money is transferred between spouses doesn’t automatically make it matrimonial. The courts looked closely at where the £78 million came from, it was built up before the marriage, and even though it was later transferred, there was no clear intent to share it. That’s crucial. The origin of the asset is what matters most.

2. Needs Still Come First

Even though the money was non-matrimonial, the court didn’t leave Anna empty-handed. She was awarded £25 million to meet her future financial needs. That’s a powerful reminder that fairness in family law isn’t about splitting everything in half, it’s about ensuring both parties can meet their needs after divorce.

3. Not All Transfers Are “Gifts” in the Legal Sense

Clive’s transfer to Anna was part of tax planning; the court found that this gift was not made with the intention that Anna would own and use the money freely. In legal terms, this distinction matters. If a gift during marriage is genuinely intended to be shared, and it is used by both spouses or treated as joint property, it may become part of the matrimonial pot. But where the purpose is something else, like tax planning—and there’s no follow-through (in this case, the trusts were never created), the courts may treat the money as still belonging to the original owner.

4. Non-Matrimonial Assets Can Still Be Used—to Meet Needs

The judgment confirms that even if wealth is “non-matrimonial,” it doesn’t mean the other spouse can’t access it at all. If there are no other resources available, and the lower-earning spouse’s needs can’t be met otherwise, then the court can make awards from non-matrimonial property. But this won’t be about equal sharing, it’s about fairness and meeting genuine needs.

Why It Matters—for Everyone, Not Just the Super-Rich

You might think this is only relevant for the ultra-wealthy, but the principles apply to many divorce cases, especially where one partner comes into the marriage with assets, or where family money or inheritances are involved.

If you’re entering a marriage with significant wealth, or receiving gifts or inheritances during the relationship, the source and use of those assets will matter. Keeping them separate, documenting intentions clearly, and considering a pre- or post-nuptial agreement could make all the difference if the relationship ends.

If you’re the financially weaker spouse, don’t panic, courts will still protect your needs, especially if you’ve sacrificed career prospects or taken on family responsibilities.

Final Thoughts

The Standish case isn’t about denying fairness in divorce; it’s about drawing clearer lines between what belongs to the marriage and what doesn’t. The Supreme Court has sent a message: not all wealth brought into or transferred during marriage becomes “ours.”

But it’s also a reminder that family law is flexible. Fair outcomes depend on context, and judges retain wide discretion to ensure that everyone is looked after, especially when there are children or big financial imbalances involved.

If you have concerns about protecting your assets or ensuring your financial needs are met, whether you’re entering into marriage, considering divorce, or navigating financial arrangements, our expert family law team is here to help. Feel free to get in touch with us to discuss further.