Need to know

• The Supreme Court has ruled that legal ownership isn’t the final word on asset division.

• There is now a clear line between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property in divorce cases.

• Everyday actions like gifting property or mixing assets can have big consequences, highlighting the value of early legal advice.

Welcome to TSL’s Weekly Edge, whether you’re aiming for a regional or high-street practice, or just want to get a feel for how law works in the real world beyond textbooks, you’re in the right place. 

No corporate jargon, no massive deals, just real useful information designed to give you that extra edge in your legal journey.

🧠Wilson’s Weekly Wisdom

Here’s what they don’t put in the textbooks about court work: sometimes, chaos is just part of the job. You can prep all you want, double-check every detail, and still get thrown a curveball. I once had a two-day trial where everything went sideways, and it all happened on the first day.

Picture this:

1. You’re up at the crack of dawn, taking two earlier trains than necessary, just in case you’re train was delayed or in my case, cancelled.

2. You get there on time, only for the Court not to be open as they don’t have enough security staff.

3. Just when things finally kick off? Fire alarm.

4. Oh, and then you have to sit waiting around for the Judge to be ready.

You’d think this kind of perfect storm wouldn’t all hit at once…but trust me, it can, as it happened me recently.

It’s not about avoiding the chaos (you can’t). It’s about learning to roll with it. Whether it’s courtroom curveballs or last-minute emails from clients, unpredictability comes with the territory. The best solicitors? They stay calm, stay ready, and adapt on the fly.

💡Spotlight Article

In July, the Supreme Court brought home a new addition to the family law sphere with the decision of Standish v Standish. The Court explored the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, which is a key issue when dividing assets during divorce.

I read the 20-page judgment, so you don’t have to (although I recommend you do!).

Here’s all the important stuff without the fluff to help you ace that high street law firm interview.

🔎What’s happening? 

Clive Standish, ex-CFO for UBS Group, was married to Anna Standish from 2005 to 2020. Between them, the couple had two children, a joint family home, and a transfer of assets worth £80 million. 

In 2017, Clive transferred his pre-marital investment funds to Anna as part of an estate planning exercise to escape paying Inheritance Tax. Clive also intended for the assets to be held on trust for their children, but this trust never materialised.

Fast forward to 2020. The marriage was beyond saving, and divorce proceedings began.

But there’s a problem when it comes to splitting the assets: Clive and Anna disagree over whether the £80 million investment funds are matrimonial property, making those funds liable to equal sharing, otherwise known as the “sharing principle”. 

This distinction is important because the principle only applies to property that has been gained during and because of a marriage.

So, what did the Court decide?

Perhaps surprisingly, the Supreme Court ruled in Clive’s favour. 

To work out if an asset has been “matrimonialised”, the court says to look at how the parties have actually treated the assets. Did they, over time, behave as if it were shared?

Here, the Court held that Clive’s pre-marital assets hadn’t been “matrimonialised”, and upheld Anna’s £25 million award from the Court of Appeal rather than the £45 million granted by the High Court.

Why?

Because the funds were:

• Earned before the marriage,

• Transferred for tax purposes, not as a gift, and

• Intended to benefit the children, not Anna.

In short, Clive had not treated the assets as shared, so they stayed non-matrimonial!

❓ Why it matters to high street firms

Standish provides valuable judicial clarity that’s highly relevant to local family solicitors.

First, the Supreme Court confirmed that legal ownership isn’t everything. Just because something’s in your spouse’s name doesn’t mean it’s automatically matrimonial. Judges will look at how the couple actually treated the asset, not just what’s written on paper.

It also shows how easily things can get messy when intentions don’t match the paperwork. Clients should be advised to keep clear records and think carefully before mixing personal assets with family finances.

Most importantly, the case is a cautionary tale. Failing to align estate planning with matrimonial protections, like nuptial agreements, can leave clients exposed to lengthy, expensive litigation. Clive won, but at what cost?

Sure, Standish was a high-net-worth case. But the legal principles apply across the board. Many everyday clients make moves, from gifting property to blending assets, without realising the consequences. That’s where family solicitors come in.

Nuptial Agreements

It’s not just for celebrities and millionaires! These are legal agreements made before (prenup) or during (postnup) a marriage that set out how finances should be handled if the relationship breaks down. While they don’t bind courts, they carry serious weight when done properly.

Think of them as a financial seatbelt: you hope you’ll never need it, but you’ll be glad it’s there if you do.