The court was asked how to achieve fairness in ancillary relief proceedings on a divorce as respects pension entitlements. The parties had sufficient to allow a clean break, but the assets mixture included sums invested which would be returned only as pension payments.
Held: The court and parties should have taken advantage of the procedures available which would have resulted in a pension sharing order in the form now made: ‘a failure to treat the pensions as different in kind from the other assets, without at any rate making a significant adjustment to reflect the difference, was bound to lead to unfairness. The proportion of the husband’s assets that would vanish on his death was far greater than the proportion of the wife’s assets that would vanish on hers.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
Times 05-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 681, [2006] 1 WLR 3448
Links:
Statutes:
Divorce etc (Pensions) Regulations 2000, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 25
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Brooks v Brooks HL 29-Jun-1995
A director’s pension scheme could be treated as a post-nuptial marriage settlement where the director was the only scheme member. It was thus a matrimonial asset capable of variation by a court in ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. The court . .
Cited – Cowan v Cowan CA 14-May-2001
When considering the division of matrimonial assets following a divorce, the court’s duty was, within the context of the rules set down by the Act, to impose a fair settlement according to the circumstances. Courts should be careful not to make . .
Cited – Maskell v Maskell CA 8-May-2001
Ancillary relief application . .
Cited by:
Cited – S v S FD 22-Sep-2006
The court heard an application for ancillary relief. The judgment had been delayed pending the decision in McFarlane. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.242183