Standish v Standish: What It Means for Business Valuations in Divorce

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, handed down on 2 July 2025, is the most significant family finance judgment in almost two decades. For forensic accountants and the solicitors who instruct us, it fundamentally changes how we approach business valuations in divorce, and it reinforces the court's reliance on single joint expert evidence in high-value cases.

We have already seen the effects of Standish in our instructions. Solicitors are asking sharper questions about the origins of wealth, and letters of instruction now routinely ask us to distinguish pre-marital value from marital accretion. This article sets out what the judgment decided, how it interacts with a recent high-value case that tested SJE evidence to its limits, and what it means in practice for forensic accounting work in financial remedy proceedings.

What the Supreme Court Decided

The facts in Standish were striking. Mr Standish, aged 72, had accumulated approximately GBP 80 million through a career in financial services before his 2005 marriage to Mrs Standish, aged 57. He was a homemaker throughout the marriage. In 2017, he transferred GBP 77.8 million in investment funds into Mrs Standish's name as part of an inheritance tax planning exercise. She was intended to settle these into trusts but did not do so. When she began divorce proceedings in 2020, she argued the assets were now "matrimonialised" because they were held in her name.

The Supreme Court dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal's reduction of her award from GBP 40 million to GBP 25 million. The judgment established five principles that will shape financial remedy practice for years:

1. The sharing principle from Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 applies only to matrimonial property, being the "fruits of the marriage".
2. Matrimonialisation depends on the manner in which the parties treated assets and their intentions, not merely on legal title.
3. Transferring assets into a spouse's name, whether solely or jointly, does not automatically matrimonialise them.
4. Tax-motivated transfers do not imply matrimonialisation.
5. Only approximately 25% of the transferred funds, representing growth during the marriage, constituted matrimonial property.

The practical effect is clear. Pre-marital wealth is now more firmly protected than at any point since White v White [2000] UKHL 54. The "why" behind a transfer is decisive, not the "where" of legal ownership.

Matrimonialisation: The New Test

Before Standish, the concept of matrimonialisation was somewhat uncertain. Several first-instance decisions had treated the movement of assets into joint names, or into a spouse's sole name, as evidence that the owning party intended to share them. The logic was superficially appealing: if you put it in your spouse's name, you must have intended it to become matrimonial property.

The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning directly. The Court held that matrimonialisation requires evidence of how the parties actually treated the asset during the marriage. Did they use it as a family resource? Did they both contribute to its growth? Was the transfer part of everyday matrimonial financial management, or was it driven by an external purpose such as tax planning?

For forensic accountants, this creates a more rigorous analytical framework. Where a business existed before the marriage, we must now trace the development of value through the marriage and isolate the components attributable to marital effort. A simple snapshot valuation at the date of trial is no longer sufficient on its own. The instruction should also cover the pre-marital value, requiring analysis of historical accounts, profit attribution over time, and the extent to which post-marital goodwill is personal to the owner-spouse or genuinely enterprise goodwill generated through joint endeavour.

This is more demanding work than a conventional matrimonial business valuation, and it requires earlier and more comprehensive disclosure of historical financial records.

BY v GC: The SJE in Practice

The Standish principles did not emerge in isolation. They should be read alongside BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226, a case involving GBP 89.5 million in assets that provides a masterclass in how forensic accounting evidence operates in high-value financial remedy proceedings.

In BY v GC, PwC was appointed as Single Joint Expert to value 23 separate business interests held across both parties. PwC produced over 315 pages of valuation reports, supplemented by approximately 60 pages of responses to parties' written questions. The scale of the forensic accounting exercise reflected the complexity of the asset pool: multiple jurisdictions, overlapping corporate structures, and significant goodwill components.

The husband, dissatisfied with PwC's conclusions, applied under Daniels v Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508 to introduce his own expert. His expert's valuation was GBP 7.1 to GBP 7.3 million lower than PwC's figure. The court refused the application. Instead, it directed that updated management accounts be provided to PwC so they could refine their existing analysis. The message was unambiguous: the court's strong preference is for a single authoritative forensic accounting analysis, not competing valuations that widen the issues in dispute.

The costs consequences in BY v GC were equally instructive. Total legal costs exceeded GBP 3.1 million. In the costs judgment, BY v GC (No 3: Costs) [2026] EWFC 50, a costs order of GBP 79,000 was made against the non-engaging party. The husband's significant non-disclosure and failure to engage with the disclosure process led the court to draw adverse inferences about his asset position. This is the sharp end of what happens when a party obstructs the forensic accounting process.

What This Means for Business Valuations

For those of us who carry out business valuations in matrimonial cases, Standish and BY v GC together create several practical requirements.

First, dual-date or multi-date valuations are now routine in cases involving pre-marital businesses. The forensic accountant must value the business at the date of marriage (or as close as the records allow) and at the current date or date of trial. The difference represents the maximum marital accretion, subject to further analysis of the drivers of growth. If the business grew primarily through reinvestment of pre-marital capital rather than the owner-spouse's personal effort during the marriage, even the accretion figure may need adjustment.

Second, goodwill analysis takes on greater importance. In a professional practice, personal goodwill attributable to the owner-spouse's reputation and relationships may have existed before the marriage. Enterprise goodwill generated through systems, staff, and brand development during the marriage is more likely to be treated as matrimonial. The forensic accountant must distinguish between these components with supporting evidence, not merely assertion.

Third, the methodology must be transparent and defensible. BY v GC shows that courts will rely heavily on the SJE's analysis and resist attempts to introduce alternatives. This places enormous responsibility on the appointed forensic accountant. Where we act as SJE, our reports must set out the full range of reasonable valuations, explain the assumptions driving each, and provide clear reasons for the preferred figure. A conclusion presented without this analytical framework invites challenge and judicial scepticism.

Fourth, tracing exercises become central. Where funds have moved between personal and business accounts, between jurisdictions, or between asset classes during the marriage, the forensic accountant must trace the source funds and their treatment over time. This is particularly relevant where one party argues that pre-marital capital was "mixed" with matrimonial funds. Post-Standish, the mere fact of mixing does not automatically convert the original capital into matrimonial property. The forensic accountant must trace the flows and present the court with evidence of the parties' intentions and conduct.

Pension Sharing Implications

Standish's logic extends beyond business interests. Pensions present the same analytical challenge: where one spouse had significant pension accrual before the marriage, the pre-marital element may now be classified as non-matrimonial and excluded from sharing.

This has immediate practical consequences. In cases where we work alongside a Pension on Divorce Expert (PODE), the PODE's report should now distinguish between pre-marital and post-marital pension accrual. The Cash Equivalent Value (CEV) stated on Form E makes no such distinction. A forensic accountant advising on the overall settlement must integrate the PODE's analysis with the broader asset schedule, ensuring that the court has a clear picture of what is matrimonial and what is not.

For defined benefit pensions, the calculation is particularly nuanced. Pre-marital years of service, salary growth during the marriage, and the scheme's accrual rate all interact. A simplistic pro-rata time apportionment may not accurately reflect the true marital element, especially where salary growth was concentrated in certain periods.

Practical Guidance for Solicitors

For solicitors instructing forensic accountants in financial remedy cases following Standish, we suggest the following approach.

In the letter of instruction, ask the forensic accountant to address the pre-marital value of any business interests and the drivers of growth during the marriage. Frame this as a neutral question rather than an assumption. If the business pre-dates the marriage, historical accounts from the date of marriage (or the nearest available period) should be included in the disclosure bundle.

On disclosure, request complete financial records going back to the start of the marriage, not just the standard three to five years. This may include Companies House filings, historic management accounts, tax returns, and bank statements showing the movement of capital between personal and business accounts. Early and comprehensive disclosure reduces the risk of delay and enables the forensic accountant to produce a thorough report within the court's timetable.

On the SJE appointment, ensure the agreed expert has the capacity and experience to handle the complexity. BY v GC involved 23 business interests and 315 pages of valuation analysis. Not every forensic accountant can deliver work at that scale within a court-directed timetable. Discuss the scope, likely fees, and timescales before the appointment is finalised.

On costs, advise clients that non-engagement with the forensic accounting process carries real financial risk. BY v GC's costs order of GBP 79,000, on top of GBP 3.1 million in total costs, and the adverse inferences drawn from non-disclosure, make the point clearly. Cooperation with the forensic accounting process is in both parties' interests.

Standish and BY v GC together represent a recalibration of how the courts approach wealth in divorce. For forensic accountants, the work is more demanding but also more precisely defined. The question is no longer simply "what is the business worth today?" but "what part of today's value is attributable to the marriage, and why?" Answering that question properly requires rigorous analysis, transparent methodology, and early, comprehensive disclosure.

If you are instructing a forensic accountant in a financial remedy case involving pre-marital wealth or complex business interests, contact Jack Ross or call 0161 832 4451 to discuss the scope of instruction.

Last updated: March 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Standish mean pre-marital assets are always excluded from sharing on divorce?

Not automatically. Standish confirms that pre-marital assets are presumptively non-matrimonial, but the court retains discretion to include them where they have been genuinely matrimonialised through the parties' conduct during the marriage, or where they are needed to meet one party's reasonable needs under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Each case turns on its own facts.

What is the difference between personal goodwill and enterprise goodwill in a divorce valuation?

Personal goodwill is value attributable to the individual owner's reputation, relationships, and personal skill. Enterprise goodwill attaches to the business itself through its systems, staff, brand, and client base independent of any one person. Post-Standish, this distinction matters because personal goodwill that existed before the marriage may be classified as non-matrimonial, while enterprise goodwill developed during the marriage is more likely to be treated as a fruit of the marriage.

Can a party challenge the Single Joint Expert's valuation in financial remedy proceedings?

Yes, but the threshold is high. Either party may put written questions to the SJE under CPR Part 35.6. If dissatisfied with the answers, a party can apply under Daniels v Walker [2000] EWCA Civ 508 for permission to instruct their own expert. However, BY v GC [2025] EWFC 226 shows that courts are reluctant to grant this, preferring to direct additional information to the existing SJE rather than introduce competing valuations.

How far back does the forensic accountant need historical financial records?

Where a business or asset pre-dates the marriage, the forensic accountant ideally needs records from the date of marriage or as close to it as possible. This may include Companies House filings, management accounts, tax returns, and bank statements showing the capital position at the start of the marriage. The further back the records extend, the more accurately the pre-marital value can be established and the marital accretion isolated.