Supreme Court Ruling Sets New Precedent for Asset Division in Divorce

A recent Supreme Court ruling has established a precedent regarding the division of assets in divorce cases. The case involved a former banker who had transferred a substantial sum of money to his wife before their divorce. The court's decision dictates that the assets will not be split equally.

In 2017, Clive Standish, then 72, transferred approximately £78 million in investments to his wife, Anna, as part of a tax planning strategy. These assets were originally considered Clive's separate property, acquired before their marriage. The couple married in 2005 and had two children together, but their marriage ended in 2020.

Initially, a High Court judge divided the couple's total wealth of £132 million, awarding Clive £87 million and Anna £45 million. Clive appealed this decision, arguing that the majority of the money, including the transferred assets, had been earned before their marriage. The Court of Appeal subsequently reduced Anna's share to £25 million, recognizing that a significant portion of the assets predated the marriage.

The Supreme Court has now upheld the £25 million figure, with all five justices agreeing that Clive was entitled to the larger share because the money was earned before the marriage. This ruling is considered significant, potentially impacting asset division in divorce cases.

Legal experts suggest this judgment could increase the use of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. These agreements can help couples define how assets are divided in the event of a divorce.

The court explained that the 2017 asset transfer was primarily for tax purposes and for the benefit of the children, not intended to be shared between the couple. Clive had expected his wife to use the money to establish offshore trusts, but she did not do so.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of transparent financial planning within relationships. Legal professionals highlight the value of pre- and postnuptial agreements as tools for clearly dividing and protecting assets, reducing legal uncertainty, and allowing individuals to set their own terms rather than relying solely on court decisions.