When can family trust wealth be shared on divorce? The lessons from TP v TF

Handed down on 29 July 2026, TP v TF concerned a marriage of more than 20 years and the husband’s family trusts, worth billions of pounds. It raised two questions of wider relevance: when will discretionary trust assets be treated as a financial resource on divorce, and when can wealth derived from a family inheritance become matrimonial property to be shared? The answers resulted in an award to the wife of approximately £120.4 million.

What happened in TP v TF?

The parties, both aged 63, married in 2001 and separated in 2024. Family trusts established over several generations held shares in a family company and other investments worth billions of pounds.

A central feature was “CAP”, a notional allocation created to recognise the husband’s contribution to the family business. The issue was whether it was genuinely available to him despite remaining within discretionary trust arrangements.

The trustees said they would be minded to make available the “vast majority, and potentially the entirety” of CAP. Mr Justice Garrido concluded that “vast majority” meant at least 95% and found it likely that the trustees would make the entire value available if asked.

That finding was fundamental: CAP had a gross value of approximately £291 million, assessed at about £229 million after tax.

Can assets in a family trust be taken into account on divorce?

A trust does not automatically make all its assets available to a beneficiary on divorce. The court applied the established Charman test: if the spouse asked the trustees for capital, would they be likely to advance some or all of it now or in the foreseeable future? The focus is practical access, not simply legal ownership or control.

Applying “worldly realism”, the judge considered the trusts’ purpose, historic distributions, contemporary documents and what the trustees said they were likely to do. He did not, however, treat the husband’s wider dynastic wealth as his own. The trustees could not envisage further capital distributions once CAP had been made available, and the judge accepted that evidence.

When does inherited or family wealth become matrimonial?

The second issue was whether CAP was matrimonial property and therefore subject to equal sharing. This required the court to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish.

Although CAP originated in family wealth, contemporaneous documents showed that it was deliberately distinguished from inheritance and intended to reward the husband’s work in growing the family business. The wife supported him during the marriage and enabled that work. Their financial and domestic roles were complementary contributions to the marital partnership.

CAP accumulated during the marriage, and its subsequent passive growth was therefore matrimonial property.

What about the part accumulated before marriage?

Standish distinguishes between:

• matrimonial property, broadly the fruits of the marriage partnership or the parties’ common endeavour; and
• non-matrimonial property, typically including assets brought into the marriage and property received by inheritance or gift.

Matrimonial property is normally shared equally. Non-matrimonial property is not shared merely because the parties divorce, although it may become matrimonial through “matrimonialisation”. I considered these principles in Supreme Court Clarifies Asset Division In Divorce – Standish v Standish.

Some value had accrued to CAP before the marriage, but its dramatic growth occurred during the marriage while the husband held increasingly important positions in the business. The judge considered the pre-marital element comparatively insignificant and any attempt to isolate its present value difficult and unreliable.

He therefore treated the entire net value of CAP as matrimonial property to be shared equally.

Why does TP v TF matter for families with trusts or inherited wealth?

First, putting wealth into trust does not automatically protect it on divorce. The court will consider how the trust operates and whether trustees are likely to provide resources to the beneficiary.

Second, purpose matters as well as source. CAP derived from dynastic wealth, but the documents showed that it rewarded the husband’s endeavours rather than representing another inheritance.

Third, TP v TF shows the importance of matrimonialisation after Standish. Families seeking to preserve inherited or pre-marital wealth should consider not only its origin but how it is treated during the marriage.

Finally, planning before marriage remains important. A well-prepared pre-nuptial or post-nuptial agreement can be compelling evidence of how a couple intends inherited, trust or family wealth to be treated. This is particularly relevant to long-term succession planning, as discussed in my colleague Natasha Kurth’s article, Protecting family wealth across relationships.

TP v TF is not simply another “big money” divorce. It demonstrates how Standish applies to complex family wealth. For families using trusts across generations, legal ownership matters, but so do purpose, practical access, documentation and the treatment of wealth during marriage.

At Wedlake Bell, we advise many clients wishing to protect their family wealth through nuptial agreements and we represent others going through divorce where trust interests are being considered.

To discuss how the family team at Wedlake Bell can help you, contact Alex Davies on adavies@wedlakebell.com and 07827 961826.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a comprehensive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should always be sought in relation to individual circumstances.

Meet the team:

1. 

   • Alex Davies

   • Partner
   • Family & Divorce

   Visit Alex's profile

View the whole team