A retired investment banker has won a Court of Appeal challenge to reduce the sum owed to his former wife by £20 million.

Clive Standish, 71, and Anna Standish, 56, were married in 2005, with the marriage ending in 2020.

During legal proceedings over how to split assets of £132 million, in 2022 High Court judge Mr Justice Moor awarded Mr Standish £87 million and Mrs Standish £45 million.

However, at an appeal in November, lawyers for Mr Standish argued that the majority of the assets were as a result of his "pre-marital endeavour" and should not be shared like assets gained during the marriage.

His lawyers told the appeal hearing in London that Mrs Standish - with whom he has two children - should receive £25 million instead.

READ MORE: Rory McIlroy's rival cracks joke over his divorce and shares theory

Mrs Standish opposed the appeal and brought her own challenge at the hearing last year, with lawyers telling the court that the couple had chosen not to make a prenuptial agreement.

Her lawyers also argued that the funds had been mixed and should be split evenly, including a transfer of assets now worth around £80 million into her name in 2017 for an ultimately unfulfilled tax scheme.

But in a judgment on Thursday, Lord Justice Moylan, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Phillips, ruled in favour of Mr Standish.

Lord Justice Moylan said that the "fair outcome" in the case would be to provide Mrs Standish with around £25 million, leaving Mr Standish with approximately £107 million.

He said: "In my view, it is clearly established that, in the application of the sharing principle, the source of an asset is the critical factor."

Lord Justice Moylan said the transfer of the assets into Mrs Standish's name in 2017 "did not change their characterisation" and make them the property of the marriage.

The appeal judge described the previous decision as "flawed" and said it "has resulted in an unjustified division of the family's wealth in the wife's favour".

He added that the case will now be returned to a lower court if the parties cannot agree.

One of Mr Standish's lawyers, Lucy Stewart-Gould, said the judgment "properly reflects the fact that the substantial wealth in this case was generated almost entirely by his work prior to the marriage".