Month: July 2025

Chambers HNW 2025 just published – all members of the LMP senior team once again recognised

Posted on by Sam Woodward

LMP partners Simon Pigott, Jeremy Levison, Alison Hayes, Kate Stovold and Benjamin Stowe, together with most senior lawyer Lucy Hoare, are ranked once again in the recently launched Chambers High Net Worth 2025 for Family/Matrimonial Finance.

With thanks to the efforts of the entire LMP team, the firm is included in the elite Ultra High Net Worth rankings table which identifies the leading professional advisers to the Private Wealth market in the UK.

LMP founding partners Jeremy and Simon are also recognised in this top-ranking table with Jeremy ranked as a Senior Statesman and Simon in Band 1.

Alison, Kate and Ben appear in the main rankings for the complementary Family/Matrimonial Finance: High Net Worth tables. Lucy continues to be listed, for an impressive fourth year running, in the  “Associates to watch” column.

Simon also continues to appear in the Spotlight table for mediators; one of only thirty six specialists to be recognised.

The HNW Guide, now in its tenth year, has always featured LMP, and the firm is pleased to be included again this year.

In ranking the leading lawyers and law firms specialising in advising HNW clients, the Guide also features feedback from clients and peers.

This year’s Guide includes the following testimonials:

About the firm:
“Their senior team, who I’d classify as senior family lawyers, bring a huge amount of respect to what the firm has. It’s a personable firm, and good value due to its boutique feel.”

“Even the juniors and admin staff at Levison Meltzer Pigott were excellent. All responses were very timely and I felt put first in everything.”

Simon Pigott:
“Simon’s great, a pleasure to work with. I really like him: he’s a decent, normal human being who knows his stuff. He’s been around a while and people respect him. He’s an amazing mediator as well.”

“I felt in safe hands with Simon as mediator. He was measured, fair and listened to both sides. That meant we had as few sessions as possible and all was done in good time rather than drawing it out.”

“Simon Pigott is a much-respected statesman of family law. He exudes statesmanlike qualities. He has done this so long and is very good at anticipating things; nothing takes him by surprise.”

Jeremy Levison:
“Jeremy’s clients love him. He’s got the right perspective and has been doing this long enough to know that we’re all presenting clients’ cases and not to get overly personal or engage in a fight.”

“Jeremy Levison is a lovely bloke and a brilliant practitioner. I really enjoy being against him on cases.”

Alison Hayes:
“Alison Hayes is a very smart cookie.”

“Alison Hayes is completely dedicated to every case. She’s always completely on top of everything.”

“Alison is really firm, really kind and quick.”

Kate Stovold:
“Kate Stovold is a ‘no stone left unturned’ lawyer. She also manages clients’ expectations well and she is very measured in her advice.”

“Kate Stovold is one of those people who has a fist of iron in a velvet glove. She is very easy to get on with and personable, but she does not hold back for the client. She is a real fighter.”

“Kate Stovold is always responsive, compassionate, judicious and has a keen eye for understanding my point of view.”

Benjamin Stowe:
“Benjamin Stowe has a real fluency with cases and he is really comfortable dealing with complicated matters.”

Lucy Hoare:
“I was super impressed with Lucy’s ability. She has a lovely manner; she has this real humility about her, and she is a super quick learner.”

“Lucy Hoare is utterly charming and fantastic to deal with.”

“I was struck by how pragmatic she was. She was appropriately reassuring and ensured the client was on board. She was really good at keeping everyone calm.”

Standish v Standish: biggest UK Supreme Court case on dividing marital assets in 20 years.

Posted on by Sam Woodward

LMP’s Lucy Hoare and Imogen Lenton consider the issues raised in the Standish v Standish appeal to the Supreme Court and the question of when and how non-matrimonial assets become matrimonial and how it may impact on the division of assets on divorce.

The case involved a retired UBS banker who, to negate inheritance tax, transferred circa £77m worth of non-matrimonial assets to his wife in 2017 (non-domiciled in the UK) with a view to, in due course, setting up offshore trusts for the benefit of the parties’ two children. However, when the wife issued divorce proceedings after 15 years of marriage in 2020, the assets remained in the wife’s name.

When the High Court came to consider the division of the assets in 2022, the Judge divided what he characterised as the matrimonial property unequally in the husband’s favour (60/40), awarding the husband £87m and the wife £45m.  This was to reflect the fact that the husband’s pre-marital assets had become “matrimonialised” but also that the assets were derived from an unmatched contribution from the husband.

The wife appealed to the Court of Appeal in 2023 and the husband cross appealed, arguing that the majority of assets, including the transferred c.£80m, was pre-marital. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the husband.  It held that the High Court Judge was wrong to determine that the entirety of the assets transferred to the wife in 2017 were “matrimonialised” and therefore open to division between the parties.  Instead, the Court of Appeal found that 75% of the funds transferred to the wife in 2017 were non-matrimonial property and not subject to the sharing principle. The Court of Appeal stated that the High Court judge’s application of “the sharing principle” in the case had been “flawed” and the wife’s share was reduced by a staggering 45% to £25m (being 50% of the assets which the Court of Appeal found to be matrimonial.)

On 30 April and 1 May 2025 the Supreme Court heard the wife’s appeal with her Leading Counsel  highlighting that “the perverse effect” of the Court of Appeal Judgment is that “the wife has almost no entitlement to share in assets that, during the marriage and by the express intention underlying the husband’s gift, she came to own,”. He further argued that if left uncorrected, the Judgment would have significant ramifications in other divorces.

The case sent ripples through the family law space primarily as it raised issues about the definition of “matrimonialisation”, and the application of the sharing principle but also because it highlighted the importance of a holistic approach to wealth planning and lent weight to the endorsement of the efficacy of Pre- and Post-Nuptial Agreements.

The Supreme Court Judgment focuses on providing clarification around the definition of “matrimonialisation” and the “sharing principle” considering in detail the following five principles related to the sharing principle:

1. It recognised the conceptual distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property.

Matrimonial assets are typically assets earned or gained during the marriage; “the product of the parties’ common endeavour”.  Such assets are subject to the sharing principle with the starting point being equal sharing. Who holds legal title to the property is not determinative in deciding what is and what is not matrimonial property.

Non-matrimonial assets are typically assets owned before the marriage by one party, or assets of a non-marital source, ringfenced or received as an inheritance during the marriage. 

2. The time has come to make clear that non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle
In the face of past reluctance, yesterday’s Judgment has made clear that “non-matrimonial property should not be subject to the sharing principle (though non-matrimonial property can be subject to the principles of needs and compensation).”  The Supreme Court was of the view that “the distinction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property becomes largely meaningless if the sharing principle applies to the latter as well as the former.”  It is now clear that the sharing principle only applies to matrimonial property and does not apply to non-matrimonial property.

3. Sharing should normally be on an equal basis

The Judgment confirms that “the sharing of the matrimonial property should normally be on an equal basis. Although there can be justified departures from that, equal sharing is the appropriate and principled starting position. Indeed, once non-matrimonial property is excluded, much of the justification for not applying equality in sharing fades away.”

4. What starts as non-matrimonial property may become matrimonial property

“Matrimonialisation” can occur i.e. non-matrimonial assets can become matrimonial and are then subject to the sharing principle and treated as part of the marital assets available for division.  The Court of Appeal in Standish was of the view that this concept should continue to be applied but this should be done narrowly.  The Supreme Court disagreed and said that “it is neither narrow nor wide” and that “matrimonialisation rests on the parties, over time, treating the asset as shared.”

5. Transfers of assets with the intention of saving tax may not establish sharing
In the context of this particular case, the asset was not treated as being shared between the parties. The intention had been simply to save tax.

Lucy Hoare commented:

“The wife was facing an uphill battle in persuading the appeal courts that the assets transferred to her in 2017 to be put in Trust for the children were matrimonial assets which should be shared.  In upholding the husband’s success in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has confirmed that it was right that none of the non-matrimonial portion of the assets were subject to matrimonialisation.  Non-matrimonial property is not subject to the sharing principle.  The clarity this Judgment offers in relation to the sharing principle is critically important for Ultra-High Net Worth and High Net Worth couples.”

Imogen Lenton added:

“After five years of litigation, this Judgment is likely to be a wakeup call to those divorcing, family lawyers and financial advisors.  This is the time for those with concerns about the provenance and the categorisation of assets to seek professional advice.  We look forward to reading others’ views and commentary and seeing how the decision impacts future financial proceedings.”

You can read the full Judgment here.

If you have any questions about the implications of Standish v Standish on your divorce, Lucy, Imogen or any member of the LMP team shall be pleased to assist.

LMP’s Lynne Shrimpton celebrates a half century in law.

Posted on by Sam Woodward

The LMP team celebrates with Executive Assistant, Lynne Shrimpton, as she commemorates an incredible 50 years of working with lawyers.

Lynne was part of the team, which included founding partners Jeremy Levison and Simon Pigott, which broke away from Collyer Bristow in 1998 to form the boutique family law firm of Levison Meltzer Pigott (LMP).

Jeremy, who reached his own 50-year milestone as a qualified lawyer only last year, had this to say about his Executive Assistant, Lynne and her landmark achievement:

“How the legal office environment has changed in 50 years!
Back in the early 1970s when both Lynne and I started our careers, no solicitor typed his/her own work.  Everything was recorded on a reel-to-reel tape recorder.  Any false-keying by the secretary meant that she had to go over the offending letter/number with Tippex, to blank it out and then once again type over it. There was no “cut and paste” and the concept of email communication, when faxes were just about coming over the horizon, was in the realms of sci-fi.

Technology may have improved but Lynne’s continued skilled precision and 1970s-learnt attention to detail is still very much valued and appreciated. I also have on good authority that lawyers are not always the easiest people to work with and so 50 years in law is indeed  an incredible achievement.
But more than that, Simon Pigott and I are simply honoured that Lynne, who moved with us in 1998 to support our vision for a more innovative, boutique and personal approach to family law,  is still endorsing this decision by continuing to work with us today. The three of us are the three members (out of an initial ten) of that founding team to still be part of the LMP family.
Speaking for all her LMP colleagues, current and past, we thank Lynne for her continued loyalty to the firm and look forward to working alongside her for many years to come.”