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

Talitha offers sound advice, asks the right questions and advises you with what you need to know not just what you want to hear. I have no hesitation in recommending her services.

Sep 2021   Anu Vidyarthi

Henry took the time to go through all the details of my separation thoroughly. He was very clear on what my options were and what I needed to do to have a seamless agreement with my ex. Thank you for all your help!

Aug 2021   Sandeep Cina

Talitha provided a free consultation and could not have been more helpful. Her guidance was pragmatic and she managed my expectations both on costs and the process. Talitha offered practical advice to find a solution that could avoid going to court.

Aug 2021   Richard Doyle

I had an initial chat with Kevin, the senior associate. Extra ordinary talent to convince parties, very intelligent and I was wonderstuck at his brilliant knowledge of family law.

Aug 2021   Mrs. M. Merchant

I have nothing but positive feedback about this firm... Lorraine Imms from Brookman was absolutely brilliant... Her knowledge is exceptional and she has kept me informed through every step... I'd give ten stars if I could!

Jun 2021   Martin Byrne

Myself and my mother had a free video consultation with Mr. Brookman regarding my mother's divorce and were both impressed with his knowledge on divorce matters, professionalism and understanding. Henry then followed up with us with a clear plan of what he suggests we do...

Mar 2021   Bruna Cordeiro Pezzano

I had a consultation with Mr. Brookman and was impressed with his honesty, knowledge and understanding of my situation. He seemed to take a genuine interest in my case, which immediately put me at ease.

Mar 2021   Chichi

Very swift response and concise information. I had a very engaging free consultation with Mr Brookman initially which was informative and professional.

Feb 2021   Garry Ralph

I would like to say my experience with Mr Brookman was an extremely positive experience. His knowledge, advice and compassion put me very much at ease and made a very difficult situation much more bearable.

Feb 2021   Jenny Brock

Very helpful, and honest about my situation even though it wasn’t business for them at this time. Would recommend.

Jan 2021   Natalie Roche

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