Latest news with #AnnaStandish
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Landmark Supreme Court ruling on how assets are split in divorce 'will trigger boom in US-style prenups'
A Supreme Court ruling on how cash earned before a marriage should be divided in a divorce is set to herald a boom in US-style prenuptial agreements, lawyers have said. Today the UK's highest court ruled that a retired banker who gave his wife almost £80million to avoid inheritance tax will not have to split the money with her equally following a divorce. The landmark ruling clarified that money earned by one partner before a marriage does not automatically become 'matrimonialised' - and thus shareable in a divorce - if it is transferred to the other partner. However lawyers said the judgment paves the way for a boom in pre- and post-nups as the ruling states that the intention behind a transfer of cash between partners is crucial in deciding who gets what in a divorce. Five Supreme Court justices ruled today that Clive Standish, 72, is entitled to keep the largest share of almost £80million he had transferred to his ex-wife Anna Standish, 57, because most of the money had been earned prior to the marriage. The former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS had transferred the money to his wife, who is Australian, to take advantage of her non-dom status and avoid paying £32million in inheritance tax following changes to the law. Mr Standish expected his wife to use the money to establish two offshore trusts, but she never did and so remained the sole owner when divorce proceedings began. In 2022 the High Court decided that Mrs Standish should receive £45million of the family's £132million total wealth. But this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which reduced Mrs Standish's share to £25million. Today the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision with a ruling that will affect how wealthy people plan their finances and estates - particularly following Chancellor Rachel Reeves' inheritance tax changes. Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens said in their ruling: '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.' Lawyers said the ruling will spark an increase in couples signing US-style pre- and post-nuptial agreements in order to avoid similar lengthy and costly legal battles. Pre-nups - a contract which state how assets are divided in the event of a divorce - are not legally recognised in England and Wales but are common in the United States and Europe. But such agreements are generally respected by the courts following a 2010 Supreme Court ruling, although it is currently left to the discretion of judges. In December the Law Commission, the independent body which recommends legal reform to Parliament, proposed formally recognising pre-nups in UK law. The Government has a year to respond in full to the proposals. Claire Reid, a partner at Hall Brown Family Law, said: 'Given the recent changes to the Inheritance Tax rules announced by the Government, there are likely to be many individuals undertaking the kind of estate planning that Mr and Mrs Standish were. 'Wealthier spouses will now be alive to the need to formalise the terms of any transfers of cash or other assets even more clearly to avoid falling into the same complicated situation. 'That will probably mean ensuring that there are very carefully worded pre- and post-nuptial arrangements put in place to protect them from any future claim of the sort made by Mrs Standish.' Stephanie Kyriacou, managing associate in family law team at Freeths lawyers, the case 'adds renewed relevance to pre-nuptial and post nuptial agreements for high-net-worth individuals, particularly where tax planning, inherited wealth or business assets are concerned'. Ms Reid added: 'Even allowing for the fact that properly drafted nuptial agreements are regarded as persuasive by the courts, they still don't have full legal weight, 15 years after another landmark Supreme Court ruling. 'Therefore, this latest judgement will add pressure on ministers to outline what they intend to do regarding the Law Commission's suggestions that legislation governing financial settlements on divorce might be overhauled.' The Supreme Court ruling came on the same day that official figures showed divorce numbers had returned to pre-Covid levels after falling during the pandemic - with this driven largely by women. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures showed that 103,816 dissolutions were recorded in England and Wales in 2023 - including 102,678 marriages and 1,138 civil partnerships. The majority of marriages now end through so-called 'no fault' divorces or dissolutions for the first time following a change in the law in 2022 - with 74.2 per cent of divorces 'no fault' in 2023. However despite the introduction of joint divorce applications, the figures show that almost three-quarters of divorce proceedings were still initiated by one party alone. The ONS figures show that women are the driving force behind divorce - whether it be in opposite or same-sex marriages. Women accounted for 50,164 sole applications for divorce in 2024 out of a total of 100,787 - with 29,123 divorce applications made solely by men and 19,743 joint applications made by both partners. The figures also show that same-sex divorces have increased four-fold in the last five years and that last year women made 65 per cent of all applications for divorce in same-sex marriages. Women in same-sex relationships made 839 sole applications for divorce last year and 378 joint applications - compared to 427 sole applications and 247 joint applications for men in same-sex relationships. The figures also show that the average length of a same-sex marriage that ends in divorce is significantly shorter for women in same-sex relationships. The median duration of marriages that ended in divorce was 12.7 years for opposite-sex couples and 7.2 and 6.3 years for male and female same-sex couples respectively, according to the ONS.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Farmer's ex-wife loses £80m inheritance-tax battle
A sheep farmer's ex-wife has lost a Supreme Court fight over £80 million he gave her to avoid potentially paying inheritance tax. In 2017, Clive Standish, a 70-year-old farmer and former chief financial officer of UBS, transferred assets to his wife, Anna, with a plan to place the money in an offshore trust for the benefit of their two children. But when she began divorce proceedings after 15 years of marriage in 2020, the assets remained in her name. The marital assets at the time of the split were £132 million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3 million fortune that Mr Standish brought into the marriage. In 2023, a High Court judge awarded Mr Standish £87.6 million and Mrs Standish £45 million. Mr Standish appealed against the decision, arguing that most of the money, including the £80 million of assets that he transferred, was earned before the marriage. Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled Mrs Standish's share should be reduced to £25 million, representing her contribution having raised their children and looked after the home. Mrs Standish, 56, subsequently went to the Supreme Court in a bid to have the ruling overturned and reclaim the £20 million. On Wednesday, five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the decision, saying that putting the £80 million into her name to avoid tax did not turn it into 'matrimonial assets'. 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace,' said the court in its ruling. '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. 'The parties' intention was that the £80 million should not be retained by the wife.' Mr Standish retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28 million sheep farm in Australia. Meanwhile, the couple enjoyed life at Moundsmere Manor, an 18-bedroom mansion set in 83 acres near the Hampshire village of Preston Candover, on the site of an original manor once owned by Henry VIII. Tim Bishop KC, for the husband, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that in June 2004 the husband was worth £57.3 million, while the wife 'has no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. This situation left him open to a potentially huge inheritance-tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016. These affected anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from [inheritance tax]' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust'. 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020,' the barrister said. Richard Todd KC, for Mrs Standish, argued that the £80 million was the wife's property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split, leaving each of the former spouses with £56.3 million. 'Not shared on an equal basis' But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens agreed with the Appeal Court and dismissed the appeal. '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,' they said. '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.' They added: 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and child carer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25 per cent of the £80 million, so that that 25 per cent was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80 million.'
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
For richer, for poorer: ex-banker will not have to split £80m equally with wife, court rules
An ex-banker who gave his wife £78m will not have to split it equally with her following their divorce, according to a supreme court ruling experts say sets a precedent for dividing up assets after a marriage ends. In 2017, prior to their divorce, Clive Standish, 72, transferred investments worth £77.8m to his wife Anna as part of a tax planning scheme. These assets had originally been Clive's non-matrimonial property, the court was told. The couple married in 2005 – this was the second marriage for both – and have two children together. However, the marriage broke down in 2020. In 2022, a high court judge split the family's total wealth of £132m by awarding Clive £87m and Anna £45m. The former challenged this decision at the court of appeal, arguing that the majority of the money, including the transferred assets, was earned before they began living together. Last year, court of appeal judges assessed that 75% of the near-£80m had been earned prior to the marriage and cut Anna's share to £25m. The supreme court has now upheld the £25m figure after five justices unanimously agreed that because most of the sum of money had been earned prior to the marriage, Clive was entitled to keep the largest share. The landmark judgment might involve the super-wealthy but is 'relevant to everyone,' said family lawyer Caroline Holley, partner at law firm Farrer & Co. The law firm Stewarts, which represented retired banker Clive in the case, said: 'Divorcing couples across England and Wales now have clearer guidance on how their assets will be categorised upon divorce.' Legal experts suggested the judgment could increase demand among couples for prenuptial agreementsand postnuptial agreements as a way of protecting people's interests if it all goes wrong later. Clive Standish, being domiciled in the UK, was worried about paying millions 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.' Clive Standish expected his wife to use the money to set up two offshore trusts, but she did not do that and remained the sole owner of the assets when legal action began, the court heard. Chris Lloyd-Smith, partner in the matrimonial team at law firm Anthony Collins, said: 'With the judgment being in favour of Mr Standish, the court has set a precedent of firmer boundaries between personal and shared wealth.' He said 'the most important takeaway' was that transparent financial planning in relationships was crucial. 'When it comes to managing expectations and reducing legal uncertainty, pre- and postnuptial agreements that are reviewed regularly are important tools to divide and protect assets with clarity. This way, you protect yourself and set your own terms, instead of relying on a court decision.'
NDTV
3 days ago
- Business
- NDTV
UK Top Court Gives Landmark Verdict In Ex-UBS Banker's Divorce Case
The ex-wife of a former UBS executive on Wednesday lost an appeal against her divorce award at Britain's top court, in a ruling lawyers said could have implications for wealthy people who move assets to shield them from inheritance tax. Clive Standish, the Swiss bank's chief financial officer from 2004 until 2007, last year successfully challenged his ex-wife Anna Standish's original 45 million-pound ($62 million) award from what was then a 133 million-pound estate. The case turned on whether roughly 80 million pounds of investment funds Clive Standish transferred in 2017 into his then-wife's name, to be placed in trusts for their children, were matrimonial property. Matrimonial property is generally acquired during the marriage and courts take an equal division as the starting point upon divorce. London's High Court ruled the funds were matrimonial property and awarded Anna Standish 40% of them, but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal which gave her a 25 million-pound share of the estate. Anna Standish appealed to the UK Supreme Court, which unanimously rejected her case. Judge Andrew Burrows said that, aside from each spouse's contribution, the key issue was "how the parties have been dealing with the asset". The judge ruled the transfer of the funds into Anna Standish's name was to "save inheritance tax and was for the benefit of the children", making it non-matrimonial property. Clive Standish's lawyer Lucy Stewart-Gould from Stewarts said the ruling showed that "title alone is no determiner of how assets should be divided". Anna Standish's lawyers declined to comment. The case will now return to the High Court to decide if the 25 million-pound share will meet Anna Standish's reasonable needs. Lawyers say the ruling is especially significant for high-net-worth individuals where wealth has been transferred for tax or estate planning purposes. Britain has long been seen as a favourable jurisdiction by less wealthy partners and courts have regularly made awards running into the hundreds of millions of pounds. Will MacFarlane, from the law firm Kingsley Napley who was not involved in the case, said the decision removed "a conflict between IHT (inheritance tax) planning and wealth protection". Sarah Norman-Scott from Hodge Jones & Allen said the Supreme Court ruling "shows a clear steer towards wealth preservation", but added that the decision could impact any divorcing couple.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Couples warned to ‘keep clear records on source of wealth' following landmark divorce ruling
A retired banker who gave his wife nearly £80 million to avoid paying inheritance tax will not have to split that money with her equally following a divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled. Five justices unanimously agreed that because most of the money had been earned prior to the marriage, Clive Standish, 72, was entitled to keep the largest share. He had transferred the multimillion-pound assets to his wife Anna Standish, 57, in 2017, to take advantage of the Australian's non-dom status and allow more money to benefit their two children. 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. Sam Longworth of Hudson Sandler and the lead partner for Mr Standish said: 'The Supreme Court has also provided essential guidance as to when assets which do not have an originating connection to the marriage partnership should be considered marital. 'This guidance will give the courts a clear framework to ensure individuals cannot benefit from running false arguments as to whether they had or had not agreed to share certain assets during the currency of their relationship.' Claire Reid, a partner at Hall Brown Family Law, said the ruling was more 'goalposts being moved' than a 'paradigm shift', adding that other spouses 'looking to manage their wealth to minimise their tax bills' should be 'very circumspect in how they do so'. She said: 'Given the recent changes to the inheritance tax rules announced by the Government, there are likely to be many individuals undertaking the kind of estate planning that Mr and Mrs Standish were. 'Wealthier spouses will now be alive to the need to formalise the terms of any transfers of cash or other assets even more clearly to avoid falling into the same complicated situation.' Sarah Norman-Scott and Victoria Walker, family law partners at Hodge Jones & Allen and Moore Barlow respectively, said couples should keep clear records on the source of their wealth. Ms Walker said: 'Going forward, families will need to keep tighter records to demonstrate that transfers were executed for specific purposes. 'That said, if spouses cannot meet their respective needs from the pool of available assets, the court will still draw on non-matrimonial funds to ensure fairness. 'However, for high value separations where plenty of wealth is available, Standish delivers a clear message: intent is everything.' Yael Selig, a family law partner at Osbornes Law, predicts a 'a surge' in prenuptial and postnuptial inquiries following the Supreme Court's decision. She said: 'Whilst such agreements are not yet considered the norm, they are becoming that way and particularly for couples where there are significant assets involved, although the court's decision will always be grounded in making sure that the financial needs of both parties are met.' Lucy Stweart-Gould, second partner for Mr Standish at Hudson Sandler, said owning money or assets at the time of the divorce, known as having title, is not enough to claim ownership; what matters is how that property is intended to be used. She said: 'Title alone is insufficient evidence to permit a party to share in a non-marital asset. 'What is required is an intention to share and treatment of the asset as shared; on the proper analysis of the facts of this case there was neither.' Jennifer Dickson, family law partner at Withers, agreed. She said: 'The judgment makes clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle and matrimonial property should ordinarily be shared 50/50, but that non-matrimonial property can be 'matrimonialised' depending on the couple's intention and treatment of that wealth during the marriage. 'Had the tax planning exercise been designed to benefit Mrs Standish, rather than their children, it may well have been a different story.'
