Provenance and Divorce: Why Origin Matters

This article explores the financial consequences of relationship breakdown. Any reference to divorcing couples should be read to include civil partners.

Meaning of provenance

The word provenance generally means the place something comes from – its source, origin, or the beginning of its existence.

Provenance often provides contextual and circumstantial evidence for how something was originally created or discovered. It is a term frequently used in the art world and food industry.

Why provenance matters in divorce

The source of an asset can have profound consequences in a divorce.

Identifying whether an asset is matrimonial or non-matrimonial has become an essential exercise, as it can significantly affect how assets are divided.

Key questions include the following.

• Should an asset be shared between the parties?
• Should one party retain it entirely?

In advising clients, two stages are typically considered.

• Wealth: What is the total value of assets under consideration?
• Distribution: How should those assets be divided?

The categorisation of assets directly informs their distribution.

Matrimonial vs non-matrimonial property

• Non-matrimonial property – usually pre-marital assets brought into the marriage by one party, or property acquired by gift or inheritance.
• Matrimonial property – assets representing the fruits of the marriage – property reflecting the parties’ shared endeavour.

A worked example

Rachel and Hugo married in 2018 and are divorcing in 2026. Both are 40, childless, and in highly paid roles.

Each has sufficient assets to meet their own future housing needs, and pensions are not a concern as both are part of occupational schemes.

Non-matrimonial assets at the time of marriage:

• Rachel inherited GBP1.5 million, held in equities and savings in her sole name.
• Hugo owned two classic cars worth GBP600,000, gifted by his father and kept solely for his use.

These remain non-matrimonial.

Matrimonial assets acquired during marriage:

• A home purchased for GBP1 million, with equal contributions to both deposit and mortgage.
• A holiday barge purchased for GBP90,000, jointly funded and maintained.

These are matrimonial and likely to be shared equally.

If resolved amicably – a common goal – Rachel might keep the home and buy Hugo out, while Hugo might do the same with the barge. Alternatively, one or both may be sold and proceeds split equally.

Problems arising

Complications often arise when categorising an asset and determining whether it should be shared.

Consider a variation of the Rachel and Hugo scenario:

• Hugo owned 100% of the shares in ABC Limited, a private high end shoe company he set up with his father in 2008.
• The company produced net profits of GBP300,000 per annum, extracted mostly by dividend. Hugo never worked in the business; his father ran it.
• After marriage, Rachel proposed expanding the business to include handbags. With Hugo’s and his father’s consent, she devoted most of her personal time to this project.
• As a result, profits increased to GBP450,000 per annum during the marriage.
• After their separation, profits continued to rise and handbag sales were predicted to overtake shoe sales.
• Rachel received no shares and was neither a director nor on the payroll.

Has Hugo’s shareholding become matrimonialised, such that Rachel should receive a share of its value?

Matrimonialisation: why the subject is in the spotlight

This issue was examined in a recent decision: Standish v Standish, decided by the Supreme Court on 2 July 2025.

The Court considered when non-matrimonial property becomes matrimonial and how the sharing principle applies.

In simple terms – as applied to ABC – did the shares become matrimonial, and if so, how should they be shared between Rachel and Hugo?

The Standish case – background

Mr Standish (72) and Mrs Standish (57) married in 2005.

He built a highly successful career in financial services, becoming Chairman and CEO of UBS’s regional division by 1999 and earning AUD11 million annually by 2002.

His pre-relationship wealth (circa GBP57 million) included:

• financial investments;
• an Australian farm of 6,005 hectares;
• an Australian company running the farming business; and
• a Melbourne property.

They began living together in 2004 and married in December 2005, later having two children.

In 2017 – before the marriage broke down – he transferred investments worth GBP77.8 million and some shares in the farming company to his wife as part of a tax planning scheme.

The intention was for her to set up discretionary trusts for the children in Jersey.

Draft trust deeds were prepared, but Mrs Standish never created the trusts.

By the time the marriage broke down in early 2020, the transferred assets were worth around GBP80 million.

She argued these were matrimonial and should be shared.

Total assets at divorce were about GBP132 million.

The first court decision

The judge held that the GBP80 million had become matrimonial property and should be shared.

He awarded Mrs Standish GBP45 million – an unequal 60/40 division in her husband’s favour to reflect the “special contribution” he had made.

Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, ruling that the transferred assets were not transformed into matrimonial property; at least 75% remained non-matrimonial.

Mrs Standish’s award was reduced to GBP25 million.

She appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Mrs Standish left the marriage with GBP25 million.

What clients need to know: impact of Standish and the relevance of provenance

Below, the key points are summarised using the ABC example for context.

1. Legal title does not determine true ownership

Hugo owning all ABC shares does not extinguish Rachel’s potential claim. Her contribution to the company’s value is likely to attract a financial award.

2. Provenance matters

Hugo’s long held ownership and the company’s established value before marriage weigh against equal sharing.

3. Assets can become matrimonial over time

ABC began as non-matrimonial wealth. Rachel’s active contribution likely changed its categorisation.

4. Sharing applies only to matrimonial assets

Without Rachel’s involvement, ABC would not be shared.

5. Matrimonial assets are typically shared equally, but exceptions exist

Rachel’s entitlement is likely linked to her contribution – not to a 50% share of ABC – given the company’s origin in Hugo’s and his father’s pre-marital efforts.

6. How the asset was treated during marriage matters

Hugo and his father encouraged Rachel’s involvement. This suggests mutual engagement with the asset.

7. The parties’ intentions are important

Intent can strongly influence categorisation and outcome.

8. Tax planning transfers usually do not indicate sharing

Transfers such as those in Standish generally do not convert non-matrimonial wealth into matrimonial property.

The key message

When advising a client on divorce, a thorough examination of financial history is essential.

The origin, evolution, and treatment of assets often come under close scrutiny.

Even when the source of wealth is easy to identify, tracing its movement – especially if it has changed form – is crucial.

Understanding how the parties handled the asset over time, and whether their actions showed an intention to share or benefit each other, will often be decisive.