Standish: £77 Million and the “White Leopard”: Can Non-Matrimonial Assets Become Shared Property in Divorce?

Standish: £77 Million and the “White Leopard”: Can Non-Matrimonial Assets Become Shared Property in Divorce?

In a landmark appeal currently before the Supreme Court, the question of whether a £77 million transfer between spouses during marriage can become matrimonial property is under intense scrutiny. The case, which resumes tomorrow, could reshape how courts interpret asset division—especially among high-net-worth individuals.

The Background: A Transfer, a Trust, and a £77 Million Question

The couple married in 2005 and separated in 2020. In 2017, the husband (H) transferred £77 million to the wife (W), allegedly for tax planning purposes. Although the funds were intended to go into a trust, they remained in W’s name and increased in value to £80 million by 2020.

At the heart of the case is whether this transfer amounted to matrimonialisation—the legal transformation of a non-matrimonial asset into one that is subject to the principle of equal sharing during divorce.

Lord Faulks KC for the Wife: “The Transfer Speaks for Itself”

Representing W, Lord Faulks KC argued the transfer should be treated as matrimonial property. He urged the court not to wait for Parliament to act but to use this opportunity to clarify the law on asset classification.

He acknowledged that non-matrimonial property is rarely shared—a concept described by Justice Moylan as a “white leopard.” But relying on precedents such as White v White [2000], Miller/McFarlane [2006], and Charman v Charman [2007], he emphasized that equal sharing is the starting point and should only be departed from for good reason.

He also drew on K v L [2011] and JL v SL [2014], arguing that over time, assets can become so mixed with the marital estate that separating them becomes unrealistic. He pointed to the 2017 transfer not being kept separate and made on legal advice, with H relinquishing control. According to Lord Faulks, this shows an intention for the asset to benefit the family—not just W.

In addressing the transfer’s purpose, Lord Faulks downplayed suggestions it was for tax efficiency in order to solely benefit the children. He highlighted H’s own words that the funds were to benefit “all of us”—interpreting this as a reference to the family.

To allay concerns over broader implications for financially independent spouses, he invoked the court’s support for nuptial agreements. Drawing on Radmacher v Granatino [2010], he argued that financial autonomy and informed decisions during marriage should be respected, especially when made with legal advice.

Mr Bishop KC for the Husband: “It’s Not the Fruit of the Partnership”

Responding for H, Mr Bishop KC pushed back firmly against the idea that non-matrimonial property can or should be shared. He criticized W for changing her stance from earlier proceedings, where she claimed ownership of the asset. Now, she argued the opposite—that it should be deemed matrimonialised and shared.

Mr Bishop KC contended that sharing principles arise from Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and specifically apply to assets created through common endeavour. Since the £77 million was not a product of joint contribution, he argued, there’s no justification for sharing it.

He pointed to precedent—including Jones v Kernott [2011], Hart v Hart [2017], and XW v XH [2019] — to support a strict approach. Though the law allows for sharing of non-matrimonial assets “in theory,” he argued it rarely happens in practice—hence the “white leopard.”

Discussing mixing, Mr Bishop KC accepted that some assets can become matrimonial through sustained integration, as in K v L. However, he argued this case fell short. A mere transfer, even if large, does not indicate a clear intention to share, especially when there is no history of joint financial pooling.

Lady Simler challenged this position, questioning how fairness is achieved when, for example, inherited funds are spent jointly over years but not considered mixed unless there is contribution from the other party, even if that contribution is merely £5. Mr Bishop KC replied that mixing must be assessed by extent, manner, and fairness. 

He also dismissed comparisons to pre-nuptial agreements. While autonomy matters in prenups, he argued, it shouldn’t apply to one-off asset transfers, particularly when there was no mutual understanding that the asset would be matrimonialised.

Looking Ahead: A Decision with Broad Implications

As the court prepares to hear the next stage of submissions tomorrow, the outcome of this case could have significant implications—not only for this couple but for the broader legal landscape.

Should financial decisions made for tax planning during marriage later be interpreted as matrimonial generosity? Or should courts protect individual property rights more rigidly unless there’s clear, sustained integration?

In a world where asset protection, estate planning, and legal nuance increasingly shape marriage dynamics, this case may be the turning point for how English courts define the boundaries of “shared” in marriage. 

Check back soon for updates as the case continues.