In divorce cases “high net worth” (HNW) usually refers to situations where combined assets are significant, often in the millions of pounds. “ultra-high net worth” (UHNW) matters typically involve assets exceeding £30million or more. These cases often involve complex business structures, international assets including properties, trusts, private businesses, offshore investments and accounts, private equity assets and luxury items including jewellery, cars, artwork and antiques.

In England, divorce settlements are guided by three core principles: needs, sharing and compensation.

Sharing: Matrimonial assets – i.e. those acquired and accumulated during marriage through joint efforts - should generally be divided equally, regardless of legal ownership. Marriage is viewed as an equal partnership in which both financial and domestic contributions are of equal value.

Needs: Courts assess what both parties reasonably need to maintain a standard of living similar to that enjoyed during marriage. In high-net-worth cases, “needs” are interpreted generously; someone accustomed to luxury holidays, private schools, and multiple homes has correspondingly higher reasonable needs than someone from a modest background.

Compensation: Where one spouse sacrificed career advancement for the family, perhaps taking primary childcare responsibility or relocating for the other’s career, fair settlements include compensation for economic disadvantage.

• “Matrimonial property” is classified as assets acquired during the marriage as part of the couple’s shared economic activity – for example employment income or jointly accumulated wealth.
• "Non-Matrimonial property” is defined as assets brought into the marriage or acquired through inheritance/ gift from external sources, including pre-marital wealth.

The matrimonial vs non-matrimonial distinction is crucial. Assets owned before marriage, including inheritances and gifts from third parties may be treated as non-matrimonial property and excluded from equal division, particularly following the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, which confirmed that the sharing principle applies only to matrimonial property. Non-matrimonial property, which includes pre-marital businesses, inheritances, and gifts, is not subject to equal division. It can still be accessed to meet a spouse’s needs, but the default position is that it remains with the owner.

Disputes often arise in HNW cases as to whether an asset is classified as matrimonial or non-matrimonial, and the classification can significantly affect the outcome of financial claims.

The concept describes how non-matrimonial property can become matrimonial, and therefore sharable, based on conduct. Examples include: -

(ii) Pooling inherited wealth into joint bank accounts
(iii) Using non-marital funds to purchase the family home or jointly enjoyed assets
(iv) Holding property jointly or openly treating it as family wealth

However, matrimonialisation does not occur:

(i) Simply because of title transfer
(ii) Where the property was clearly intended for a third-party purpose (e.g. children, tax)
(iii) There is no pattern of shared use or benefit

High-Net-Worth settlements typically take longer than more straightforward cases due to the nature of the assets, the requirement for single joint expert valuations, forensic attention to disclosure and higher stakes negotiations. However, as most HNW settlements are concluded privately, through methods such as Early Neutral Evaluation, private FDR and arbitration, and they are not subject to court delays, settlements can be achieved within a 6-to-12-month timeframe - provided each party is motivated to progress matters and comply with a voluntary timetable.

The court has extensive powers and requires full disclosure of the establishment, purpose and financial details of a Trust before determining how these assets should be treated. The key considerations include: -

1. The type of Trust
2. When and why the Trust was established.
3. The availability of income or assets to a spouse under the Trust’s terms.
4. Whether the Trust qualifies as a financial resource available to a spouse.
5. If the Trust constitutes a "nuptial agreement" (e.g., continuing provision for spouses).
6. The existence of offshore Trusts and jurisdictional challenges. Courts may consider accessing other assets within their jurisdiction as part of the division.
7. Whether the Trustees need to join the court proceedings.

If the court decides trust assets should be divided, it can vary the trust, so funds are made available to the non-beneficiary, or award the non-beneficiary a greater share of non-trust assets. The assets within a trust are therefore treated as either capital or income, depending on what the court feels is most appropriate.

Should the courts feel that trusts in high net worth divorce cases have been set up to deliberately frustrate a claim or avoid a full financial disclosure, it will take a more draconian stance. This is why it’s important to seek specialist legal advice when setting one up — to ensure it’s being done for the right reasons.

Private equity assets, including carried interest, limited partnership stakes and co-investments differ from cash or publicly traded shares in that they are often illiquid, dependent on future performance, and subject to transfer restrictions. These characteristics can create difficulties in valuation and equitable division during a divorce.

The treatment of these assets in a financial settlement depends on factors such as when they were acquired, their structure, and the contributions made by each spouse during the marriage. A common negotiating hurdle in cases of this nature includes whether carried interest and partnership stakes constitute matrimonial (i.e. subject to sharing) or non-matrimonial assets (which can be excluded or treated differently). The courts assess whether a private equity interest was earned primarily due to efforts made during the marriage or whether it represents future earnings. In B v B [2013], the court made a distinction between carried interest from funds raised after separation, which were excluded from division. More recent cases such as A v M [2021] have further refined this approach by allocating carried interest based on the timelines of the funds involved.

There are various ways to negotiate settlements which involve private equity: -

1. Expert valuation reports: valuation plays a central role in financial settlements that involve private equity. Unlike liquid assets, private equity stakes lack a readily ascertainable market value and their worth dependant on future performance. Forensic accountants are typically instructed to determine the present value of carried interest, partnership stakes and co-investments. Due to the speculative nature of carried interest, such valuations often include discounts for illiquidity and uncertainty.
2. Deferred sharing: instead of seeking a formal valuation at the time of divorce, parties may agree (or the court may determine) that an asset will be shared when it is paid out. This method frequently applies to contingent assets such as carried interest.
3. Offset: in certain cases, the parties may agree (or the court may determine) to offset a spouse’s share of certain illiquid assets against existing liquid assets (e.g. cash, property or liquid investments). This may involve applying a discounted valuation for the illiquid assets.

Divorces involving business assets present unique challenges, including valuation, liquidity, and operational continuity. Independent valuations by accountants are often necessary to ensure fairness.

Whilst a limited company is a separate legal entity and its assets belong to the company, the shareholder spouse’s shares are personal property. Under section 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court can order share transfers, divide the value of the business, or offset its worth against other assets. However, following Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, pre-marital businesses now receive stronger protection from being subject to the sharing principle.

For business owners, a company started before the marriage is “non-matrimonial”, valued at its pre-marital value. Growth during the marriage attributable to the owner’s efforts becomes matrimonial in nature. Passive growth – i.e. market appreciation, retains its non-matrimonial status. The methodology established in Jones v Jones [2011] provides a framework for distinguishing between the two: the court applies a relevant market index as of the date of marriage to calculate passive growth, while the rest is classified as matrimonial property.

Valuing a private limited company is a challenging aspect of financial proceedings. For trading companies, the predominant approach is an earnings-based valuation, where the company’s maintainable earnings, usually measured by EBITA, are multiplied by a suitable factor that reflects the sector, size and risk profile. Asset-based valuations are typically applied to property or investment companies, whilst market-based comparisons are used when credible comparable transactions are available. Courts generally favour the appointment of a single joint expert (an “SJE”) – a forensic accountant whose obligation is to the court, to deliver a valuation that assesses the value of each party’s interest, sustainable income from the business and extractable liquidity.

The valuation process becomes particularly complex in cases involving entrepreneur-led businesses. When significant goodwill is closely associated with the founder, when earnings fluctuate due to rapid scaling or when the business has attracted venture capital or private equity investment with liquidation preferences and anti-dilution provisions, traditional valuation methods may not accurately reflect the economic reality. In these situations, early advice from a family lawyer with experience in complex business structures can significantly influence the outcome.

Minority shareholdings can present additional difficulties. In commercial transactions, minority discounts of 15% to 30% typically apply to reflect a lack of control. In divorce, however, the court has discretion to reduce or disapply any such discount, particularly where the controlling spouse retains the business.

The most effective protection is a shareholder’s agreement that specifically addresses divorce scenarios. Key provisions include right-of-first refusal clauses, compulsory transfer provisions, buyback mechanisms and restrictions on share transfers without board consent. These provisions cannot override or determine a court order, but they can steer the court towards alternative remedies.

The court has wide powers. It can order the transfer of shares from one spouse to the other. It can order lump sum payments, anticipating the funds will be extracted through dividends or other directors’ remuneration. It can also order the sale of a business, albeit this is often the last resort in order to preserve an income generating asset. Often the practice of offsetting is adopted, where the business owning spouse retains the shares and the other receives a larger proportion of liquid assets such as property, investments, savings etc. Alternatively, in cases where a reliable business valuation is hard to establish, the court may adopt a Wells sharing approach, dividing shares in specie to ensure both parties share the risk of the future performance of the business.

Wealth protection in HNW scenarios requires a combination early strategic wealth planning and specialist advice.
With proactive and early advice, you can preserve a company as an income-generating asset while still achieving a fair outcome for both parties. A carefully prepared pre or Postnuptial agreement, a well-written shareholders’ agreement, and keeping business and personal finances separate offer the best protection under English law.

Prenuptial and Postnuptial agreements:

A key method to protect wealth is by way of a carefully drafted Prenuptial or Postnuptial agreement. A pre or post nuptial agreement can ring-fence assets, inheritances, business interests and family wealth. Providing the agreement has been properly executed with legal advice, parties are typically bound by the terms.

For entrepreneurs approaching a funding round, IPO, an exit event, or a significant change in the value of their equity, a Postnuptial agreement can provide a practical way to record the parties’ intentions about how business interests should be treated should the marriage breaks down.

Shareholders agreements:

A shareholders’ agreement cannot override a family court order. However, it may persuade and influence the court to consider alternative remedies. Key protective clauses include compulsory transfer provisions triggered by divorce proceedings, pre-emotion rights granting existing shareholder first refusal on any transfer, restrictions on transfers to spouses or third parties without board approval and a defined valuation method. When the company has shareholders other than the divorcing couple, these provisions can safeguard these third-party interests.

Keepings assets separate:

Maintaining clear separation between business and personal assets is a simple yet effective protective tool.

With business assets, regular and consistent dividend policies, board minutes and clear corporate governance should be followed, alongside avoidance of using company funds for personal expenditure.

Avoidance of asset commingling can include not using inheritance to purchase a family home and avoidance of depositing inherited funds into joint accounts or intermingling such funds with existing marital savings.

Spousal maintenance is often a sensitive and contested issue in HNW divorce proceedings. Where there are substantial earnings, a history of a high-end lifestyle and complex remuneration structures, the assessment of ongoing financial support can play a central role in negotiations or court decisions.

In England and Wales, spousal maintenance is not an automatic right and nor is it calculated using a fixed formula. Instead, courts have broad discretion as to the appropriate quantum and term of any maintenance, assessing each case on its own facts. In high-income cases, this discretion is shaped by considerations such as earning capacity, lifestyle during the marriage, financial independence, and long-term fairness.

In High-Net-Worth cases, maintenance may often be capitalised, meaning future payments are converted into a lump sum. This can avoid ongoing dependency but may not always be appropriate.

No. The courts assess each case individually and maintenance is not automatic.

Child maintenance for high earners is not a one-size-fits-all calculation. The stakes are higher, the variables are more complex, and the outcomes for both paying and receiving parents can be significant over time.

Many high-earning couples choose to bypass the CMS and reach a family-based arrangement. This is a private agreement between parents and can be more flexible, quicker to implement, and less adversarial than CMS involvement.

In high income cases (i.e. the payer’s gross income exceeds £156,000 per annum), the court can order a “top up” amount over and above the CMS assessment. The court will assess the level of additional “top up” maintenance that is appropriate, considering the financial resources of both parties, and the needs of the children.

In the case of James v Seymour [2023] Mr Justice Mostyn sitting in the High Court of the Family Division gave further guidance as to how that ‘top up’ should be calculated, building on a formula he had previously recommended in a case known as CB v KB [2019] EWFC [49].

At paragraph 34 of his Judgment, Mostyn J states the James v Seymour formula is a logical starting point in a child maintenance case.

Notably, the formula is not relevant if: -

1. The paying party’s gross eligible income is more than £650,000;
2. There are four of more children;
3. The paying party’s income is largely unearned;
4. The paying party lives on capital.

The court will still consider an income needs budget and there is a useful example of a budget and the Judge’s view on it at paragraph 49 of the Judgment.