In BC v BC (No 2), the Family Court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish to a financial remedy case in which the judge found the spouses' net wealth to be £51.5 million.
Key facts
- Who: Spouses in a financial remedy case, here a couple with net wealth of £51.5 million, about half of it a shareholding in a listed company
- From: Judgment date: 20 February 2026
- Source: BC v BC (No.2) (Matrimonialisation; Division of shareholding; Provision for debt) [2026] EWFC 37
In the Family Court, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Garrido gave judgment on 20 February 2026 ([2026] EWFC 37) after a final hearing from 6 to 14 November 2025. The judgment was delivered in private, and the judge permitted this version to be published. The reporting rubric forbids identifying the parties, their child or their addresses.
Background
The wife applied for a financial order on 1 May 2024. The husband is 60 and the wife 54. They met in 2005 and married in 2008, have one child aged 17, and separated in early 2024. A conditional order was made on 3 July 2025. A private financial dispute resolution (FDR) hearing on 14 July 2025 was unsuccessful. The parties had spent £2,820,445 in legal fees and disbursements.
The parties could not agree how to calculate their net wealth. The judge determined it at £51.5 million (rounded). Approximately half of that is a shareholding in a listed company. The judgment's title names three subjects: matrimonialisation, division of the shareholding and provision for debt.
The legal framework
The judge said the Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish [2025] 2 FLR 489 put the concept of matrimonialisation beyond doubt and binds him. He set out these points from it:
- Matrimonial property comprises the fruits of the marriage partnership, reflects it, or is the product of the parties' common endeavour. Who holds title is not determinative.
- Non-matrimonial property is typically pre-marital property, or property acquired by external inheritance or gift. It should not be subject to the sharing principle, though it can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation.
- Sharing of matrimonial property should normally be equal. Departures can be justified, but equal sharing is the principled starting position.
- Non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property, which is called "matrimonialisation". The important question on any facts is whether that transformation has occurred.
The judge also discussed how courts decide whether a pre-marital relationship was akin to marriage. He described it as a fact-specific inquiry and added that the parties' intentions are relevant.
What this means for spouses in financial remedy cases
The judgment applies the Supreme Court's approach in Standish: the source of an asset matters, and holding title does not by itself decide whether property is matrimonial. Whether non-matrimonial property has become matrimonial depends on the facts. Anyone whose case involves shares, inherited assets or pre-marital wealth may wish to get legal advice on how these principles apply to their circumstances.
Sources
- BC v BC (No.2) (Matrimonialisation; Division of shareholding; Provision for debt) [2026] EWFC 37, Family Court, 20 February 2026