Making the financial side of divorce less painful

When sharing life’s precious resources, memories and future hopes is no longer possible.

Making the messy side of saying goodbye to your marriage as painless as possible.

Naturally, going through a divorce can be a heart breaking time – especially when it comes to disposing of the assets both parties have poured their resources, time and love into, such as a comfortable home, bought when you believed you would be sharing it with your spouse forever, or savings for rainy days, special times together or a shared retirement.

What, on the face of it to outsiders, would be considered material possessions and investments, are usually attached to memories of better times looking for a forever home together, buying a favourite car, or future plans, hopes and dreams. These are all intrinsically linked to favourite places to visit together and special people in both of your lives.

So how do you divide the objects and resources you have – that you may both be so emotionally attached and financially dependent on – into two?

Agree as much as possible

Firstly, if you’re going through a divorce, the more you can agree on about the assets that you own together, or whether something is yours or your soon-to-be-ex partner’s, the easier and more comfortable the process is likely to be.

The more you can agree on who owns what, the less messy and pain you are likely to endure through cutting and clinical courts processes.

It is preferable to reach financial agreements on who owns what before the Final Order in Divorce proceedings is made – something which is particularly important if there are pensions involved.

What if we cannot agree on who owns what?

Sadly however, there are times when agreement by negotiation is simply not possible and dividing assets becomes a little more complicated and fraught with emotion than either party would like.

In this scenario one spouse can apply to the financial remedy court for a resolution.

Even when proceedings have been issued the Court encourages continued negotiation.

What will the courts take into consideration?

If ultimately the Court has to decide on the division of the assets, income and liabilities, in doing so the Court, will take all the circumstances of the marriage into account and then, after firstly considering the welfare of any child of the family under the age of 18, and to ensure the parties needs are met, as a minimum it will consider the following:

• Each party’s income and earning capacity together with all of the assets and liabilities of the marriage;
• The ages of the parties, the length of their marriage (generally to include any period of cohabitation);
• Their standard of living prior to the marriage breakdown;
• Contributions each party has made both financially and toward the care of the family;
• Any physical or mental disability of either party

Different types of financial remedy case

There are 3 types of financial remedy case, classified as “Needs”, “Compensation” and “Sharing”.  The majority of financial remedy cases are” needs cases” i.e. there are only sufficient assets to ensure both parties “needs” are met (often housing needs) and if the Court has to dip into i.e. an inherited asset brought to the marriage by one party, then it has the power to do so.

“Compensation cases” are generally where the parties have agreed that one party remains at home to look after the family’s welfare needs, whilst the other party has continued to work and has continued to build up assets perhaps in his/her sole name – property, savings and/or pension.

“Sharing cases” are where all of the assets that the parties own have built up through their joint efforts during the course of the marriage.  If that is the case then the Court would look to share the assets equally.

What about assets owned pre-marriage?

When considering all of these elements, you may also wonder how the Court will treat assets that were brought to the marriage by one party? Just because parties are married is it fair to equally share all assets?

In a typical “sharing” case, where there are ample assets or income to meet both parties needs or to provide any compensation necessary to the lesser well-off party, will the court then also equally share assets that were brought to the marriage by one party?

The recent landmark case of Standish v Standish (July 2025), addressed that very point and concluded that “the time has come to make clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle”.

In the case of the Standishes, the husband, carrying out a legitimate estate planning exercise, transferred substantial funds that were his pre-marriage, to his wife, who was specifically instructed to invest the funds in a trust to benefit the children of the family.

However, by the time the Court addressed the finances, she had not done so, so the funds remained in her account.

The question facing the Court was:

• Did those funds remain the property of the husband?
• Or, had they become the property of wife?
• Or, had the funds become ‘matrimonialised’? IE brought by one party as an asset to the marriage but then used during the course of the marriage to benefit the entire family. This would make it possible for them to be shared equally.

The Court in ‘Standish’ firstly made abundantly clear that “what is not determinative in deciding what is and what is not matrimonial property is who has title to the property”.

Further, the Court concluded that “Tax planning schemes to save income tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace given that there is no capital transfer tax on transfers between spouses. However, 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 Supreme Court ruled that £77 million originally owned by the husband before the marriage and transferred to the wife for tax planning purposes was non-matrimonial property, protecting it from equal sharing upon divorce.

This decision clarified that the “sharing principle” primarily applies to assets acquired during the marriage, and in this case, reduced the wife’s award from £45 million to £25 million.

Helping you with your specific needs

In this case, substantial sums of money were at stake, but whatever assets you and your spouse have and whatever is important to you both, our Family Team is ready to support you.

Should you need any advice on how a Court would treat your assets call us today on 0333 210 1876 or email enquiries@jacksons.law