At the centre of that shift sit pre- and post-nuptial agreements.
1. The fairness principle hasn’t gone away – it’s been refined
English law still starts from a simple idea: fairness.
– There is no legal distinction between “breadwinner” and “homemaker”.
– Non-financial contributions – raising children, managing the home, emotional labour – are treated as equally valuable.
– Assets built up during the marriage form a matrimonial pot to be shared, subject to needs and contributions.
That philosophy, rooted in White v White, is why the courts of England and Wales became so attractive to the financially weaker spouse. The system is still willing to look beyond whose name is on the share certificates and recognise the marriage as a joint endeavour.
What has changed is how the courts treat pre-existing, externally sourced or inherited wealth.
2. Standish and the new clarity on non-matrimonial property
The Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish is the clearest signal yet that non-matrimonial property has a distinct status:
– Wealth brought into the marriage, or received by inheritance or gift, is not automatically part of the pot to be divided.
– The sharing principle applies to matrimonial property – broadly, the fruits of the couple’s shared endeavour.
– Non-matrimonial property can be “matrimonialised”, but that requires evidence that, over time, the couple treated it as shared.
In practice, Standish and the cases following it have done three things:
– Reassured wealth-holders that carefully managed, inherited or pre-marital assets can be ring-fenced in the right circumstances.
– Reminded claimants that the strongest cases now rest on a blend of:
– matrimonial property;
– clear “matrimonialisation” behaviour; and
– well-evidenced needs.
– Pushed the system towards planning: if you want clarity on what will (and won’t) be shared, leaving it all to a judge at the end of a relationship is no longer good risk management.
Which is where pre-nups come in.
3. Why pre-nups are now a core planning tool – especially for multinational families
For many international couples, pre-nups used to feel awkward or unromantic. Increasingly, they are simply part of responsible life planning, like a will or shareholders’ agreement.
They matter particularly where:
– One or both parties hold inherited or trust-based wealth.
– There is a family business, with other family members involved.
– The couple has or may have links to more than one jurisdiction – homes, passports, assets or children across borders.
A well-drafted pre- or post-nup can:
– Define clearly how non-matrimonial assets (inheritances, family trusts, pre-marital business interests) will be treated if the relationship ends.
– Provide a framework for needs – housing, income and security – that both parties recognise as fair.
– Reduce the uncertainty and cost of later arguments about whether a particular asset has become part of the matrimonial pot.
Crucially, under Radmacher, the courts will give “decisive weight” to nuptial agreements that are entered into freely, with proper information and legal advice, where the outcome remains fair. Standish doesn’t weaken that; it makes the planning value of such agreements even clearer.
4. Inherited assets, family businesses and Wells sharing – avoiding blunt instruments
Recent financial remedy decisions show the courts wrestling with how to deal with:
– Large inherited portfolios, often held with siblings or in complex structures.
– Owner-managed businesses where one asset dominates the balance sheet.
– Illiquid shareholdings and RSUs, where value will only emerge in the future.
We see three important trends, which can be framed as three practical questions.
(1) When should an inherited estate be treated as a resource, and when as a core family asset to be preserved?
– Inherited wealth is increasingly being treated as non-matrimonial, with generous but needs-based awards rather than full sharing.
– Courts are more willing to respect multi-generational wealth where the family’s intention to preserve it is clear, particularly where other resources can meet needs.
(2) When is Wells sharing appropriate, and when is a discounted clean break fairer?
– Wells sharing – where the non-owner takes a slice of future value rather than today’s valuation – remains a powerful tool where there is no realistic alternative (for example, a dominant, illiquid shareholding that cannot be sold or transferred).
– Judges are cautious about entangling ex-spouses in long-term profit-sharing arrangements unless strictly necessary. In many cases, they now prefer a discounted buy-out and a clean break, recognising the risk the business owner will carry.
(3) How should RSUs and future bonuses be treated?
– RSUs and bonuses are often a mix of past performance and future risk.
– A common approach is to share only that part which relates to marital service, with clearly post-separation awards treated as the earning party’s own endeavour.
Pre-nups and post-nups allow couples to decide in advance how they want these issues handled:
– Do we want to ring-fence a family farm or business for the next generation, while still providing genuine security for a non-owning spouse?
– If there is to be any “sharing” of a business or future equity, is it via a one-off buy-out, or a time-limited, capped Wells-type structure?
– What does “need” look like in the context of our actual lives, rather than a judge’s assessment ten or twenty years from now?
5. Is London still the “divorce capital of the world”?
The old shorthand is increasingly lazy.
– The courts of England and Wales remain generous relative to many jurisdictions, especially for the financially weaker party.
– But recent decisions have reinforced that not all wealth is created equal: how and when it arose, and how it was treated during the marriage, really matters.
– The system is moving away from the stereotype of open-ended maintenance and Mayfair mansions as standard, towards:
– ring-fencing where justified;
– needs-based provision informed by lifestyle; and
– greater emphasis on independence post-divorce.
Perhaps a better description is that England and Wales now function as a planning hub: a jurisdiction that rewards early, fair, transparent arrangements and gives couples tools to manage risk intelligently – whether or not their case ever goes near the Royal Courts of Justice.
6. ADR, NCDR and “One Couple One Lawyer” – a different way to do this
Finally, the conversation is no longer just about what the law says, but how couples resolve things.
Alongside the court process, there has been a quiet revolution in process:
– Private FDRs, arbitration and mediation are now mainstream, allowing couples to resolve their finances under the umbrella of English law without a multi-year court battle.
– There is a growing focus on Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR) in the rules and judicial guidance. The courts are increasingly willing to press pause if they think a case belongs in ADR.
– These processes are designed to preserve confidentiality and reduce delay, while still applying the same legal principles. For couples who still have to co-parent, or who care about privacy, that shift is significant.
In my own practice, a significant part of my work is in a “One Couple One Lawyer” (sometimes called a “one couple, one solicitor” or “Resolution Together”) model:
– Instead of litigating against one another, couples work together with a single, neutral family lawyer.
– The focus is on understanding their joint financial picture, the legal framework (including Standish, nuptial agreements and the treatment of businesses or inheritances), and then co-creating a settlement that works for both.
– Where appropriate, we build or refine pre- or post-nups as part of that process, so planning and resolution go hand in hand.
Pre-nups, Standish, Wells sharing and ADR are not separate debates. They are part of a single, emerging theme: moving away from blunt, adversarial litigation and towards structured, transparent, collaborative planning – especially for multinational families whose lives don’t fit neatly in one jurisdiction or one balance sheet.
