Day Two – Standish: The Apex of Autonomy? Awaiting the Supreme Court’s Answer on Sharing and Non-Matrimonial Wealth

Day Two – Standish: The Apex of Autonomy? Awaiting the Supreme Court’s Answer on Sharing and Non-Matrimonial Wealth

Link to Day One

As arguments closed in Standish, all eyes turn to the Justices’ forthcoming decision—one that could reshape the contours of wealth protection, tax planning, and marital sharing. With £80 million hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court is being asked to address a core tension: where does personal autonomy end and matrimonial fairness begin?

Mr Bishop KC’s Final Position: Principles Over Pragmatism

Returning to his central theme of no mixing, no matrimonialisation — Mr Bishop KC reiterated that the transferred asset remained a distinct entity. It was not integrated into joint life, nor functionally or symbolically shared. Its brief appearance in the marital frame, he said, was incidental, never rising to the level of “common property.” 

He placed weight on the eventual intention for the transferred asset to be placed in a trust under an already drafted trust deed, and emphasised that tax planning, however elaborate, is not a gateway to matrimonialisation. If that were so, any strategic decision could retrospectively alter the character of private wealth. For Mr Bishop KC, that would be a dangerous conflation, one that undermines certainty and opens the floodgates to post-hoc reinterpretations of intention.

Ultimately, he urged the Court to reinforce the boundary: sharing applies to matrimonial property, and only exceptionally — on needs or compensation grounds — should non-matrimonial assets be touched. The discretion surrounding non-matrimonial assets’ potential inclusion causes unnecessary legal confusion. He argued certainty in this area is a necessity.

Lord Faulks KC’s Rebuttal: Substance Over Structure

In contrast, Lord Faulks KC positioned the transfer as a moment of joint decision, with lasting legal effect. The creation of a legal mechanism, the received legal advice and the involvement of both parties marked a pivotal act of financial autonomy—as a couple. Whether or not the asset was mixed in everyday life, its management and preservation were entwined with the marriage.

He warned the Court against retreating into rigid categories, reminding them of Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006]—where the House of Lords acknowledged the fluid nature of matrimonial contributions. He described the trial judge’s 60/40 apportionment as a fair compromise and argued it should not be departed from, as it preserves the non-matrimonial origin while reflecting the reality of mutual economic partnership.

Between the Lines: A Test of Doctrinal Discipline

The underlying clash in Standish is not just factual; it’s philosophical. Is marriage a purely relational construct, where financial independence can be preserved through deliberate non-integration? Or is it inherently collaborative, with joint decisions—especially those involving substantial sums—bearing long-term implications?

The notion of the “white leopard,” floated by Lord Faulks KC, challenges the orthodoxy: rare, yes—but not extinct. Is the Court willing to create a principled exception, or will it reaffirm a bright-line rule to guide future divisions?

Looking Ahead: A Defining Judgment for a Nuanced Era

This case sits at the crossroads of asset protection and relational equity. For practitioners, the Supreme Court’s ruling may either close or widen the interpretive door around non-matrimonial property. For wealthy spouses, it raises the stakes on financial planning within marriage—and for the courts, it presents a test of consistency, fairness, and legal foresight.

In the weeks to come, we await what could be a landmark decision—one that not only defines the fate of the “white leopard,” but also charts the future of financial fairness in high-value divorces.