February 24, 2026
When significant wealth is involved, one of the most common assumptions separating couples make is that transferring assets into a spouse’s name automatically turns them into shared matrimonial property. A recent judgment from the Supreme Court confirms that this is not necessarily the case.
For high-net-worth individuals, business owners and families with inherited or pre-marital wealth, the message is clear: ownership on paper is not the whole story.
The court will consider these five key principles:
1. Whether the asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial in nature.
2. Whether the sharing principle applies to the asset. Non-matrimonial assets should not be shared, although they may be taken into account to meet needs.
3. If the asset is matrimonial, equal division is the starting point.
4. Whether a non-matrimonial asset has been treated as shared over time, so as to become matrimonial.
5. Whether any transfer between spouses was made for tax or succession planning, rather than with the intention of sharing.
On divorce, the court distinguishes between:
• Matrimonial property: assets built up during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties; and
• Non-matrimonial property: assets owned before the marriage, or received by gift or inheritance.
Only matrimonial property is subject to the sharing principle, which usually starts from an equal division. Non-matrimonial property does not automatically fall into the shared pot.
A frequent concern we hear is: “The assets are in my spouse’s name, does that mean they are shared?”
The short answer is: not necessarily.
The court will look beyond legal ownership and ask:
• Where did the asset come from?
• Why was it transferred?
• How was it treated during the marriage?
If the source of the wealth is clearly pre-marital, inherited or gifted, simply moving it between spouses does not automatically convert it into matrimonial property.
In many high-value marriages, assets are transferred between spouses as part of legitimate tax or succession planning.
The court has confirmed that:
• Transfers made for tax efficiency or estate planning are not usually treated as gifts, and
• Such transfers do not, by themselves, show an intention that the asset should be shared.
What matters is whether the asset was genuinely treated as part of the couple’s shared economic life over time.
An asset only becomes matrimonial where there is clear evidence that the parties intended it to be shared.
Relevant factors include:
• whether the asset was used to fund family life;
• whether it was mixed with other shared assets;
• whether both parties exercised control or decision-making; and
• how the asset was described and dealt with during the marriage.
Absent that evidence, non-matrimonial assets can retain their separate character.
For high-net-worth individuals, this guidance provides important reassurance:
• Pre-marital wealth is not automatically divided on divorce.
• Legal structuring alone will not determine the outcome.
• Careful planning, consistency and clarity of intention can be decisive.
It is also important to note that the court retains wide discretion. In cases where needs must be met, even non-matrimonial assets may be taken into account. Each case turns on its own facts.
This decision reinforces the importance of proactive planning, particularly where significant assets are involved.
Effective strategies include:
• Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements to reduce uncertainty;
• Aligning tax and estate planning with potential divorce risk;
• Keeping clear records of asset origins and intentions; and
• Taking advice before transferring substantial assets between spouses.
We regularly advise high-net-worth individuals, entrepreneurs and families on the treatment of wealth on divorce, including:
• The likely classification of assets as matrimonial or non-matrimonial;
• Pre- and post-nuptial agreements; and
• Strategic planning to protect family and business wealth.
If you would like to discuss your position confidentially, please contact us to arrange a meeting.
When significant wealth is involved, one of the most common assumptions separating couples make is that transferring assets into a spouse’s name automatically turns them into shared matrimonial property. A recent judgment from the Supreme Court confirms that this is not necessarily the case.
For high-net-worth individuals, business owners and families with inherited or pre-marital wealth, the message is clear: ownership on paper is not the whole story.
The court will consider these five key principles:
1. Whether the asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial in nature.
2. Whether the sharing principle applies to the asset. Non-matrimonial assets should not be shared, although they may be taken into account to meet needs.
3. If the asset is matrimonial, equal division is the starting point.
4. Whether a non-matrimonial asset has been treated as shared over time, so as to become matrimonial.
5. Whether any transfer between spouses was made for tax or succession planning, rather than with the intention of sharing.
On divorce, the court distinguishes between:
• Matrimonial property: assets built up during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties; and
• Non-matrimonial property: assets owned before the marriage, or received by gift or inheritance.
Only matrimonial property is subject to the sharing principle, which usually starts from an equal division. Non-matrimonial property does not automatically fall into the shared pot.
A frequent concern we hear is: “The assets are in my spouse’s name, does that mean they are shared?”
The short answer is: not necessarily.
The court will look beyond legal ownership and ask:
• Where did the asset come from?
• Why was it transferred?
• How was it treated during the marriage?
If the source of the wealth is clearly pre-marital, inherited or gifted, simply moving it between spouses does not automatically convert it into matrimonial property.
In many high-value marriages, assets are transferred between spouses as part of legitimate tax or succession planning.
The court has confirmed that:
• Transfers made for tax efficiency or estate planning are not usually treated as gifts, and
• Such transfers do not, by themselves, show an intention that the asset should be shared.
What matters is whether the asset was genuinely treated as part of the couple’s shared economic life over time.
An asset only becomes matrimonial where there is clear evidence that the parties intended it to be shared.
Relevant factors include:
• whether the asset was used to fund family life;
• whether it was mixed with other shared assets;
• whether both parties exercised control or decision-making; and
• how the asset was described and dealt with during the marriage.
Absent that evidence, non-matrimonial assets can retain their separate character.
For high-net-worth individuals, this guidance provides important reassurance:
• Pre-marital wealth is not automatically divided on divorce.
• Legal structuring alone will not determine the outcome.
• Careful planning, consistency and clarity of intention can be decisive.
It is also important to note that the court retains wide discretion. In cases where needs must be met, even non-matrimonial assets may be taken into account. Each case turns on its own facts.
This decision reinforces the importance of proactive planning, particularly where significant assets are involved.
Effective strategies include:
• Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements to reduce uncertainty;
• Aligning tax and estate planning with potential divorce risk;
• Keeping clear records of asset origins and intentions; and
• Taking advice before transferring substantial assets between spouses.
We regularly advise high-net-worth individuals, entrepreneurs and families on the treatment of wealth on divorce, including:
• The likely classification of assets as matrimonial or non-matrimonial;
• Pre- and post-nuptial agreements; and
• Strategic planning to protect family and business wealth.
If you would like to discuss your position confidentially, please contact us to arrange a meeting.
When significant wealth is involved, one of the most common assumptions separating couples make is that transferring assets into a spouse’s name automatically turns them into shared matrimonial property. A recent judgment from the Supreme Court confirms that this is not necessarily the case.
For high-net-worth individuals, business owners and families with inherited or pre-marital wealth, the message is clear: ownership on paper is not the whole story.
The court will consider these five key principles:
1. Whether the asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial in nature.
2. Whether the sharing principle applies to the asset. Non-matrimonial assets should not be shared, although they may be taken into account to meet needs.
3. If the asset is matrimonial, equal division is the starting point.
4. Whether a non-matrimonial asset has been treated as shared over time, so as to become matrimonial.
5. Whether any transfer between spouses was made for tax or succession planning, rather than with the intention of sharing.
On divorce, the court distinguishes between:
• Matrimonial property: assets built up during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties; and
• Non-matrimonial property: assets owned before the marriage, or received by gift or inheritance.
Only matrimonial property is subject to the sharing principle, which usually starts from an equal division. Non-matrimonial property does not automatically fall into the shared pot.
A frequent concern we hear is: “The assets are in my spouse’s name, does that mean they are shared?”
The short answer is: not necessarily.
The court will look beyond legal ownership and ask:
• Where did the asset come from?
• Why was it transferred?
• How was it treated during the marriage?
If the source of the wealth is clearly pre-marital, inherited or gifted, simply moving it between spouses does not automatically convert it into matrimonial property.
In many high-value marriages, assets are transferred between spouses as part of legitimate tax or succession planning.
The court has confirmed that:
• Transfers made for tax efficiency or estate planning are not usually treated as gifts, and
• Such transfers do not, by themselves, show an intention that the asset should be shared.
What matters is whether the asset was genuinely treated as part of the couple’s shared economic life over time.
An asset only becomes matrimonial where there is clear evidence that the parties intended it to be shared.
Relevant factors include:
• whether the asset was used to fund family life;
• whether it was mixed with other shared assets;
• whether both parties exercised control or decision-making; and
• how the asset was described and dealt with during the marriage.
Absent that evidence, non-matrimonial assets can retain their separate character.
For high-net-worth individuals, this guidance provides important reassurance:
• Pre-marital wealth is not automatically divided on divorce.
• Legal structuring alone will not determine the outcome.
• Careful planning, consistency and clarity of intention can be decisive.
It is also important to note that the court retains wide discretion. In cases where needs must be met, even non-matrimonial assets may be taken into account. Each case turns on its own facts.
This decision reinforces the importance of proactive planning, particularly where significant assets are involved.
Effective strategies include:
• Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements to reduce uncertainty;
• Aligning tax and estate planning with potential divorce risk;
• Keeping clear records of asset origins and intentions; and
• Taking advice before transferring substantial assets between spouses.
We regularly advise high-net-worth individuals, entrepreneurs and families on the treatment of wealth on divorce, including:
• The likely classification of assets as matrimonial or non-matrimonial;
• Pre- and post-nuptial agreements; and
• Strategic planning to protect family and business wealth.
If you would like to discuss your position confidentially, please contact us to arrange a meeting.
When significant wealth is involved, one of the most common assumptions separating couples make is that transferring assets into a spouse’s name automatically turns them into shared matrimonial property. A recent judgment from the Supreme Court confirms that this is not necessarily the case.
For high-net-worth individuals, business owners and families with inherited or pre-marital wealth, the message is clear: ownership on paper is not the whole story.
The court will consider these five key principles:
1. Whether the asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial in nature.
2. Whether the sharing principle applies to the asset. Non-matrimonial assets should not be shared, although they may be taken into account to meet needs.
3. If the asset is matrimonial, equal division is the starting point.
4. Whether a non-matrimonial asset has been treated as shared over time, so as to become matrimonial.
5. Whether any transfer between spouses was made for tax or succession planning, rather than with the intention of sharing.
On divorce, the court distinguishes between:
• Matrimonial property: assets built up during the marriage through the joint efforts of the parties; and
• Non-matrimonial property: assets owned before the marriage, or received by gift or inheritance.
Only matrimonial property is subject to the sharing principle, which usually starts from an equal division. Non-matrimonial property does not automatically fall into the shared pot.
A frequent concern we hear is: “The assets are in my spouse’s name, does that mean they are shared?”
The short answer is: not necessarily.
The court will look beyond legal ownership and ask:
• Where did the asset come from?
• Why was it transferred?
• How was it treated during the marriage?
If the source of the wealth is clearly pre-marital, inherited or gifted, simply moving it between spouses does not automatically convert it into matrimonial property.
In many high-value marriages, assets are transferred between spouses as part of legitimate tax or succession planning.
The court has confirmed that:
• Transfers made for tax efficiency or estate planning are not usually treated as gifts, and
• Such transfers do not, by themselves, show an intention that the asset should be shared.
What matters is whether the asset was genuinely treated as part of the couple’s shared economic life over time.
An asset only becomes matrimonial where there is clear evidence that the parties intended it to be shared.
Relevant factors include:
• whether the asset was used to fund family life;
• whether it was mixed with other shared assets;
• whether both parties exercised control or decision-making; and
• how the asset was described and dealt with during the marriage.
Absent that evidence, non-matrimonial assets can retain their separate character.
For high-net-worth individuals, this guidance provides important reassurance:
• Pre-marital wealth is not automatically divided on divorce.
• Legal structuring alone will not determine the outcome.
• Careful planning, consistency and clarity of intention can be decisive.
It is also important to note that the court retains wide discretion. In cases where needs must be met, even non-matrimonial assets may be taken into account. Each case turns on its own facts.
This decision reinforces the importance of proactive planning, particularly where significant assets are involved.
Effective strategies include:
• Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements to reduce uncertainty;
• Aligning tax and estate planning with potential divorce risk;
• Keeping clear records of asset origins and intentions; and
• Taking advice before transferring substantial assets between spouses.
We regularly advise high-net-worth individuals, entrepreneurs and families on the treatment of wealth on divorce, including:
• The likely classification of assets as matrimonial or non-matrimonial;
• Pre- and post-nuptial agreements; and
• Strategic planning to protect family and business wealth.
If you would like to discuss your position confidentially, please contact us to arrange a meeting.