The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 has attracted significant attention in private client circles. Flora Hussey, writing for New Quadrant Partners, examines the key facts and the lessons the case holds for anyone engaged in sophisticated tax planning.

The facts

The case involved a couple with combined assets of approximately £120 million. In 2017, Mr Standish transferred nearly £80 million to his wife with the intention of establishing offshore trusts before he became UK deemed domiciled. The trusts were never created. Mrs Standish retained the funds in her own name until divorce proceedings were issued.

The Supreme Court’s ruling

The Supreme Court held that 75% of the transferred funds represented non-matrimonial property — originating from pre-marital assets — and therefore did not fall to be shared equally on divorce. Only 25% was treated as matrimonial property subject to the sharing principle. Mrs Standish received £25 million rather than the £45 million originally awarded at first instance.

The primary lesson

As Flora Hussey observes: “If you take advice, make sure to follow it through.” The failure to implement the trust structures as advised transformed what was careful tax planning into an extremely costly exercise. The litigation proceeded to the Supreme Court — with all the expense and uncertainty that entails — in circumstances that could have been avoided had the original advice been acted upon.

The wider implication

Sophisticated tax structures only operate as intended when properly implemented. Where advice is sought and a course of action agreed, it is essential that the necessary steps are taken to completion. Partial implementation can create significant legal and financial risk — particularly where assets are later subject to dispute in divorce or estate proceedings.

If you have questions about tax planning, trust structures or the interaction between tax advice and family law, please do not hesitate to contact us.