For richer, for poorer: ex-banker will not have to split £80m equally with wife, court rules | Law

An ex-banker who gave his spouse £78m is not going to have to separate it equally along with her after their divorce, in keeping with a supreme court docket ruling that specialists say units a precedent for dividing up belongings after a wedding ends.In 2017, earlier than their divorce, Clive Standish, 72, transferred investments price £77.8m to his spouse, Anna, as a part of a tax planning scheme. These belongings had initially been Clive’s non-matrimonial property, the court docket was informed.The couple married in 2005 – this was the second marriage for each – and have two youngsters collectively. Nonetheless, the wedding broke down in 2020.In 2022, a excessive court docket decide break up the household’s complete wealth of £132m by awarding Clive £87m and Anna £45m. The previous challenged this choice on the court docket of attraction, arguing that almost all of the cash, together with the transferred belongings, was earned earlier than they started dwelling collectively.Final yr, court docket of attraction judges assessed that 75% of the near-£80m had been earned previous to the wedding and reduce Anna’s share to £25m.Anna Standish (entrance left) with divorce lawyer Fiona Shackleton (entrance proper) outdoors the court docket in London. {Photograph}: Champion NewsThe supreme court docket has now upheld the £25m determine after 5 justices unanimously agreed that as a result of many of the sum of cash had been earned previous to the wedding, Clive was entitled to maintain the most important share.The landmark judgment would possibly contain the super-wealthy however is “related to everybody”, stated household lawyer Caroline Holley, accomplice at legislation agency Farrer & Co.The legislation agency Stewarts, which represented retired banker Clive within the case, stated: “Divorcing {couples} throughout England and Wales now have clearer steerage on how their belongings shall be categorised upon divorce.”Authorized specialists urged the judgment may improve demand amongst {couples} for prenuptial and postnuptial agreements as a manner of defending individuals’s pursuits if all of it goes improper later.Clive Standish, being domiciled within the UK, was frightened about paying tens of millions in inheritance tax if he died with the belongings in his title, Lords Burrows and Stephens defined of their ruling on Wednesday.They stated: “Briefly, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 belongings as a result of, first, the switch was to save lots of tax, and, secondly, it was for the advantage of the kids, not the spouse.“The 2017 belongings weren’t, due to this fact, being handled by the husband and spouse for any time frame as an asset that was shared between them.”Clive Standish anticipated his spouse to make use of the cash to arrange two offshore trusts, however she didn’t do this and remained the only proprietor of the belongings when authorized motion started, the court docket heard.Chris Lloyd-Smith, a accomplice within the matrimonial group at legislation agency Anthony Collins, stated: “With the judgment being in favour of Mr Standish, the court docket has set a precedent of firmer boundaries between private and shared wealth.”He stated “a very powerful takeaway” was that clear monetary planning in relationships was essential. “With regards to managing expectations and lowering authorized uncertainty, pre- and postnuptial agreements which are reviewed usually are essential instruments to divide and defend belongings with readability. This fashion, you defend your self and set your personal phrases, as an alternative of counting on a court docket choice.”