Left out of your spouse’s Will? New Inheritance Act guidance for claims brought by spouses

The case of Standish v Standish has given new insight into what happens if your spouse does not include you in their Will, or if they leave you much less than you think is reasonable.

Spouses can bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 if they have not received ‘reasonable financial provision’.

How do the courts assess this kind of dispute?

The Courts look at a list of general factors, such as the parties’ financial needs and resources, and the size and nature of the Estate.

However, in spousal cases the Courts also look at what would have happened if the parties had divorced, rather than if the marriage had ended by the death of a spouse.

This includes what’s known as the ‘sharing principle’ to decide who should have received what from the matrimonial assets.

But what makes an asset ‘matrimonial’ and what is the sharing principle and how does it apply to each case?

As attitudes to the ‘traditional’ family shift, and family structures become increasingly complex, there are no straightforward answers to these questions.

The recent case of Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 has provided some welcome guidance.

What happened in this important case?

The husband and wife were married in 2005. Before their marriage, the husband had obtained significant wealth as the result of his successful career, from which he retired in 2007.

By 2022 the wife had filed for divorce. The Court had to look at their £132 million worth of assets to decide how this should be split.

The Court had to decide what assets were matrimonial property to decide which ones could be split on the application of the sharing principle.

What did the Court of Appeal decide on the matrimonialisation of assets?

The Court of Appeal clarified that matrimonial property is the wealth built up by the parties’ endeavours during their marriage.

The source of the wealth is important, not whose name the assets were in, but the Court also said that the source of wealth becomes less important over time and sometimes it will be fair to share an asset between the parties, even where one party may not have contributed to its value.

In this case, a non-matrimonial asset can ‘matrimonialise’ so that it can be shared between the parties.

The Court confirmed that the concept of ‘matrimonialisation’ should apply narrowly, and provided some example situations in which it may take place, such as where the marital home was purchased using non-matrimonial assets.

Usually the sharing principle means that the matrimonial assets are divided equally. However, in this case the Court said that that would not always be the case.

What are the implications of this case?

Standish v Standish provides fresh guidance on how to go about deciding how to deal with claims by spouses in 1975 Act claims and in particular how to deal with matrimonialised assets.

It is important to seek legal advice if you are facing an inheritance dispute.

Get in touch

Our Probate Dispute lawyers are members of the Association of Contentious Trusts and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS), the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP), Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE) and the Law Society’s Probate Panel. All demand a high level of expertise and up to date knowledge from their members.

Wards Solicitors’ team is praised by the Legal 500 Guide for 2025 for its broad contentious trusts and probate practice with a particular emphasis on Inheritance Act claims.

For help and advice on your inheritance dispute, please get in contact with our Contentious Trusts and Probate Team or call 0117 929 2811.