The division of intricate pension plans on divorce presents complex issues for divorcing couples, their legal advisors and family court judges. Should couples opt for a pension sharing order, a pension attachment order or should the pension be offset against other assets? Alternatively might a private agreement, negotiated independently of the court be more appropriate?

The lack of regularly reported cases involving pension division means it’s sometimes difficult to predict how a court might ultimately treat a pension in a particular case.  We’ve already drawn attention to the comprehensive guide to the treatment of pensions on divorce written by the Pensions Advisory Group (PAG). It adds clarity to many key areas.

One of the authors of the guide, Judge Edward Hess gave that report added weight in W v H (2020). In his judgment in that case he made clear that the PAG report could often be relied upon to help answer questions regarding pension division. It’s therefore worth considering the issues that arose in W v H and how Judge Hess resolved them using the PAG report.

Pension Division and the case of W v H

The couple had been together for 17 years and had three children. The husband was 48 and the wife 50. The family home had equity of approximately £500,000; the husband had a pension valued at £2.2 million and the wife one of £153,000. The husband earned in the region of £150,000 per year. Judge Hess had to decide how to treat the pension in a way that would meet the needs of the parties. In doing so he addressed the following questions:

  • Should the pension be divided so that the parties had equal income from it or so they had an equal share in its capital value?
  • Could the husband keep the portion of his pension acquired before marriage entirely for himself?
  • Should the pension asset be looked at in isolation or should its value be offset against other assets to achieve a fair settlement?

We’ll look at each of these issues in turn.

Equality of income v equality of capital

The decision whether or not to split the capital value of a pension or to look instead at the income it will generate in the future and ensure the parties get an equal share of that income will always depend on the facts of the case. As Judge Hess emphasised, there can be no ‘one size fits all approach’. However, referring to the PAG report explicitly, the judge reminded the parties of the true purpose of a pension fund – to provide income in retirement. With that in mind he indicated the fairest way to implement a pension share will often – though not always – be to provide equal incomes from the pension asset. On the facts of W v H, Judge Hess believed this was the best approach and made a pension sharing order to provide equality of income in the future.

Treatment of pension assets acquired before marriage

The husband had made significant contributions to his pension before marriage. He requested that the proportion of the pension that correlated to those contributions (42% of the total pension value) be excluded from the calculation of the pension’s value for the purposes of the divorce settlement. This would obviously have a significant impact on the wife’s share of the pension, and the judge believed that would result in unfairness. In a case like this, where use of a particular asset is required to meet the needs of a spouse following divorce, the fact that it is a non-matrimonial asset carries little weight.

Pensions and other assets

It’s not uncommon for one party to a divorce to seek to offset the value of his or her entitlement to a share of the pension against a share in some other asset. Often this will involve one party obtaining a greater share of the matrimonial home in return for a lesser share of the pension. In W v H the wife sough 100% of the family home in return for a reduction in her share of the pension. Judge Hess again highlighted the PAG report that recommends where possible avoiding this type of offsetting exercise because of the inherent risk of unfairness. Here Judge Hess indicated that to award the wife 100% of the family home as part of an offsetting exercise would be unfair to the husband, as he would be left unable to buy a home for himself.

Cases like W v H provide much-needed guidance in how to divide pensions on divorce. But the area is complicated and if you are going through divorce it’s essential to ensure you get specialist advice before agreeing on how to divide your assets, including your pension. At Brookman we deal regularly with high value, complicated divorce and the thorny issues that arise around pensions and other significant assets. For advice please call on 44 (0) 20 7430 8470 or contact us using the form below.

Got a question? Ask us now…

Kindly complete the form below to send an enquiry. Your message will be sent to one of our solicitors. Discretion is guaranteed.

Your Information

  • Consider including information such as: the name of your spouse (if relevant), the country you live in, the background to your problem.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Over 2000 FREE
consultations and counting…

Our free consultation can help you more clearly understand the legal issues relating your case and what your options are to move forward.

Request your free consultation

Or send us an enquiry

I had applied for a free consultation and I was contacted in a very short timeframe. Thank you so much for the insightful and thorough consultation, Kevin Danagher. You made me feel at ease and you provided clear expectations with the initial info I had provided... I have now a much better understanding on my query.

Feb 2024   Sonia Accardi

We had a very useful first consultation with Amber Matheson today. Amber took the time to understand our (somewhat complicated) set-up, and offered good, understandable advice on next steps. She followed up with a very thorough email clarifying what we had discussed. Highly recommended.

Feb 2024   Lucie

Lovely friendly experience. All questions were answered so that I understood completely.

Dec 2023   Ali Catlin

Very balanced, fair and pragmatic advice. Thoroughly recommend!!

Nov 2023   James Elliott

Henry graciously provided his time for a consultation. I found him to be highly knowledgeable, empathetic and he provided excellent advice which put my mind at ease. Would highly recommend Henry and his firm.

Oct 2023   Allan Ang

Henry Brookman went above and beyond during the free consultation, and even overran the allocated time. He provided invaluable professional advice in a courteous manner. I recommend his firm without reservation.

Sep 2023   Mario Ignatov

I only had my initial free review with Amelia yet I already feel much more strengthened in my legal and financial position. I am currently reflecting on the steps I want to take to negotiate my desired outcome of the financial settlement but, when I am ready to use the services of a lawyer, Amelia is definitely the top on my list.

Sep 2023   Nahid Toubia

I had a zoom consultation with Lauren Moir and she was incredible. Very patient, insightful and reassuring. She also advised me based on my previous conversations with another firm and also clarified various positions I am in. Highly recommend.

Aug 2023   Gary Hawes

I was very impressed with the friendly, helpful and professional service offered by Brookman Solicitors. The generous advice and knowledge offered during the initial free consultation has enabled us to have a much better understanding of our case and plan a way forward.

Jul 2023   Peter Jackson

I had a first consultation with Kevin, who very diligently and professionally provided an exhaustive overview of the divorce process and the best approach for my specific case.

Jul 2023   Giulia Matteo

Great service and excellent advice at the initial consultation. I would certainly recommend and use in the future.

Jul 2023   Tom James

Spoke to a kind solicitor this morning who took an hour of her time to talk me through some advice relating to a difficult separation.... She was clear and helpful with her advice, leaving me feeling much more confident with the process ahead of me.

Jun 2023   Luke Taylor

Mr Brookman provided very clear advice that left me with no doubt about the options and next steps. Getting specific advice with the requirements in the different jurisdictions was particularly useful so I won’t need to consult another lawyer outside of the UK

May 2023   Julian Anthony

From initial contact I found all staff extremely helpful and professional. My options were made clear, my query was dealt with in a sympathetic way. Would highly recommend Brookman Solicitors.

Mar 2023   seamus mcguinness

The initial consultation I have just completed with Henry Brookman was very informative; he was very open and honest about my situation, the legalities of the matter and the extent of how his firm could help.

Nov 2022   Kimberley Noakes

Google Reviews
Ask A Question

Contact Us

If you have questions, contact us now, we can help you.

Enquire Now

Or call us on +44 (0)20 7430 8470