Pensions and insurance

In proceedings for an order of divorce, dissolution, nullity, (judicial) separation, the court has the power to redistribute the benefits derived from pension resources between the parties. Pension rights often form a significant proportion of the parties’ assets. The three main ways in which the court may deal with pension rights are:

  1. pension sharing

  2. pension attachment, and

  3. offsetting, whereby non-pension income and/or assets are retained by or transferred to a party in lieu of pension sharing or attachment

Pension sharing is only available where the court will make a final order/decree of divorce, dissolution or nullity, ie the court cannot make a pension sharing order in (judicial) separation proceedings.

See Practice Notes: General principles—pensions in family proceedings, Pensions and judicial separation and Pension rights of spouses and civil partners on member’s death.

The following Precedent Letters may be sent by practitioners to their clients: Financial applications to the court—client guide and Financial disclosure and Form E—client guide.

See Pensions reform and Practice Note: Pension freedoms—an introduction for information on the 2015 reforms to pensions and the impact of pension freedoms.

Pension

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Family News

High Court judgment demonstrates usefulness of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Schedule 1 claims (Re P (A Child) (Financial Provision))

Family analysis: In this Schedule 1 case the mother received, for her son’s benefit: a housing fund of nearly £1m (the property to be held on trust); child maintenance (including ‘HECSA’/carer’s allowance) until completion of his first degree; and lump sums in respect of his capital needs and her own substantial liabilities (chiefly relating to her unpaid legal fees). The father (whose resources could be measured in the ‘tens of millions of pounds’) had sought to prejudice the mother’s claims via transferring his valuable shares to family members, who then transferred the same into a trust structure (settled under Czech law). A further onwards transfer was then made of the trust’s assets into a Liechtenstein foundation. Inferences were drawn by the court in respect of the level of the father’s wealth, and specifically as to the value of the transferred shares. Detailed findings were made against him in respect of the identified transactions, which had been the focus of the mother’s section 423 application. Although a section 423(2) order was not actually made, the application was adjourned pending the father’s compliance with the award, with security in the sum of £600,000 also ordered, alongside a continuation of the freezing orders made earlier in the proceedings. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

View Family by content type :

Popular documents