Words: Advocate Chris Hillier, Head of Family Law at Ingram Advocates.
Lawyers can be guilty of inventing confusing and lengthy words, and ‘matrimonialisation’ is one of the newest to enter the family law lexicon. Two recent English cases have highlighted the term, which refers to a Court deciding that pre-acquired or ‘non-marital’ assets may (or may not) be brought into the matrimonial ‘pot’ for division upon divorce.
Why is matrimonialisation problematic? For the wealth creators, it feels unfair for a spouse who they say did not play a part in that creation, to benefit from pre-acquired or pre-earned assets. On the other hand, those who felt entitled to a certain award could find more uncertainty in their future and spend it litigating to seek an answer. The English case of Standish v Standish, for which judgment is awaited from the Supreme Court, shows this difficulty.
In Standish, assets were worth more than £130 million. The wife started divorce proceedings in 2020 after her husband transferred £80 million to her for ‘tax planning reasons’ in 2017. It was intended that the wife would settle this into a trust, but this was not done. Initially, the court found that the transfer of the non-marital assets by the husband to the wife did have the effect of ‘matrimonialising’ them, so they could be divided, although unequally. This was because their pre-marital nature was their ‘magnetic source.’ Both the husband and wife appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reduced the order to the wife from £45 million to £25 million… we now await the decision of the Supreme Court!
Passive investment
A further English case, ST v AR [2025] EWFC 4, considered the way in which substantial amounts of managed, inherited wealth are dealt with when a marriage ends.
Although the husband described himself as a “passive investor” of his family fortune including a property portfolio, the wife contested that with his input, that fortune had increased in value, and this had led to the ‘matrimonialisation’ of the assets, as the increase had taken place during their relationship. The wife claimed that she was entitled to a greater share than what was offered by the husband. The Court disagreed, preferring the evidence of the husband.
Conclusion
Whilst both ST v AR and Standish are ‘big money’ matters, family courts can apply the principles found in them to more ‘everyday’ cases. Previously, pre-acquired assets may have been considered ‘ringfenced’ and deemed to lie outside of the ‘pot’. It is likely that those who hold the greater amount of wealth will still try to rely on this argument, or state that their success was a ‘stellar contribution’ to the parties’ wealth.
As always, there is an important side note for those divorcing in Jersey – it is not English case law which shapes the court’s views. The court will consider each case on its own facts and merits, and in accordance with Jersey’s Matrimonial Causes Law, case law and legal principles.
(This article is not legal advice. For a confidential discussion about family law matters, please contact Chris on 01534 833 888).
