Standish -v- Standish: a turning point for pension sharing in divorce

On 2 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, a case that has significantly clarified the law surrounding the division of non-matrimonial property on divorce.  While much of the commentary is focused on the treatment of gifted investments, the ruling carries serious implications for Pension Sharing Orders, especially in high-net-worth and long-marriage cases.

What was the case about?

At the heart of Standish was a dispute of how a substantial sum of money – approximately £80 million – transferred by a husband to his wife during the marriage as part of a tax planning exercise, should be treated on divorce.  The wife argued that the asset had become matrimonial property and should therefore be subject to the “sharing principle”.  The husband disagreed, maintaining the funds were always intended for the children via Trusts, not for equal division between spouses.

After successful appeals, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, holding that:

• the asset in question remained non-matrimonial; and
• there was no clear evidence that the parties had treated the assets as jointly owned or shared during the marriage.

Key legal takeaway: The sharing principle is not automatic

The Supreme Court confirmed that the sharing principle – that matrimonial property should normally be divided equally – does not apply to non-matrimonial property (such as pre-acquired assets, gifts or inheritances), unless the party asserting a share can demonstrate that such property was matrimonialised (i.e. treated as part of the shared marital pot).

The burden of proof in this “matrimonialisation” lies with the party seeking to share in the asset.

This is critical for pensions – particularly those accrued before marriage and retained in one party's sole name throughout.

Pension Sharing Orders: Why this case matters

Whilst Standish did not concern pensions directly, the logic of the ruling extends into how Courts now approach pension assets – especially those:

• built up before marriage; or
• kept wholly separate throughout, or
• originating from inheritance or non-marital sources (e.g. a compensation award or family wealth).

Before Standish:

Courts often took a more pragmatic, even discretionary, approach – especially in long marriages.  Even where pensions were pre-acquired, Judges sometimes included them in the marital pot if there had been longstanding cohabitation or financial interdependence.

After Standish:

That approach may no longer hold.  The Supreme Court has now made it clear that:

• title alone is not decisive, but
• there must be evidence of joint use, benefit or intention to share for a non-matrimonial asset (like a pension) to be caught by the sharing principle.

This suggests that the Courts may now be more cautious about awarding a Pension Sharing Order over pre-marital pensions or inherited pensions unless there is a strong factual basis to say the parties treated them as matrimonial.

In short, for pensions, the rule in Standish means that only the marital portion is automatically up for sharing.  The rest? Only if the facts support it.  This is likely to reshape not just outcomes in high-net-worth cases, but how all pensions are argued and evidenced in divorce proceedings.

In all cases, whilst the source of the asset is important, it is important to bear in mind that the weight to be placed on the source of the asset can diminish over time, and have a ripple effect. The longer the marriage, the more persuasive the argument that the parties intended to treat pensions as matrimonial.  There is also great difficulty where parties are at the stage of their life when they are going to be looking to retire shortly and there is no time to build up pension provision.  If there is enough money to meet needs pre-accrual, the Court is more likely to exclude it.  If not, the Court cannot exclude it.