A retired banker who paid nearly £80 million to his wife to avoid inheritance tax will not have to split the sum equally with her following their divorce, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.
Clive Standish, 72, had moved the multimillion-pound assets to his wife, Anna Standish, 57, in 2017. The transfer was intended to leverage Ms Standish’s Australian non-dom status, allowing more of the money to benefit their two children and mitigate inheritance tax liabilities.
However, the UK’s highest court has now determined that Mr Standish is entitled to retain the largest share of the assets. Five justices unanimously agreed that the majority of the money had been accumulated by Mr Standish prior to the couple’s marriage, a key factor in their decision.
Mr Standish, being domiciled in the UK, was worried about paying around £32 million in inheritance tax if he died with the assets in his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens explained in their ruling on Wednesday.
They said: “In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax, and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children, not the wife.
“The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them.”
Mr Standish expected his wife to use the money to establish two offshore trusts, but Mrs Standish never did so, and she remained the sole owner of those assets when legal action began.
In 2022, two years after their divorce, High Court judge Mr Justice Moor split the family’s total wealth of £132 million by awarding Mr Standish £87 million and Mrs Standish £45 million.
Mr Standish challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the majority of the money, including the £80 million of transferred assets, was earned before they began living together in Switzerland in 2004.
Last year, Court of Appeal judges assessed that 75% of that £80 million had been earned prior to the marriage and so reduced Mrs Standish’s share to £25 million.
Lords Burrows and Stephens, sitting with Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler, said they “see no reason” to interfere with the Court of Appeal’s assessment and dismissed Mrs Standish’s Supreme Court appeal.
In their ruling they noted: “The crucial point is that the 2017 assets are largely non-matrimonial property and only a relatively small element comprises matrimonial property.
“That point was lost in the approach taken by Moor J at first instance and the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and to make its own assessment.”
Lord Faulks, for Mrs Standish, argued during the Supreme Court hearing that the assets had become shared property after the transfer and that she had contributed to that wealth by accepting them as a gift.
Tim Bishop KC, said that the gift was not for the sole benefit of Mrs Standish but “primarily for the benefit of the children”.
Lords Burrows and Stephens said: “Here the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. Those assets have been transferred to the wife.
“But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them.
“Rather the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children.”
