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:

•
pension sharing
•
pension attachment, and
•
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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Family News

Family weekly highlights—12 June 2025

This week's edition of Family weekly highlights includes details of a speech by Mr Justice Nicklin on open justice and details of the Migration Advisory Committee's new family visa financial requirement review. Analysis of recent judgments on disclosure of journalistic sources, non-matrimonial assets and expert witnesses in care proceedings are included.

MAC publishes family visa financial requirements review

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its report on the minimum income requirement (MIR) for the partner migration route recommending that the MIR is not matched to the skilled worker route and making recommendations for different calculations that could be used instead and recommendations to improve the way the MIR is evidenced. This news piece sets out the key points in the report.

Family weekly highlights—5 June 2025

This week's edition of the Family weekly highlights includes analysis of a decision concerning the additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy. Recent judgments on domestic abuse, applications to set aside return orders and assessment of a solicitor’s conduct where there were issues of client capacity are also included.

Additional considerations for older intended parents considering international surrogacy (Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z)

Family analysis: In Mr and Mrs K v Mr and Mrs Z the court considered an application for a parental order by the intended parents, (the applicants), who were both aged 72 at the time of their application. The child had been born via a surrogacy arrangement in California. While all elements of section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008) criteria had been met, Mrs Justice Knowles expressed her concern, at the first hearing, that the applicant’s statements did not sufficiently detail the arrangements for the child’s care should they die or lose capacity during the child’s minority. The court was required to consider the child’s lifelong welfare interests when deciding whether to make a parental order and was obliged to examine carefully what arrangements had been made to secure the child’s welfare should incapacity or death befall either of the applicants. Natalie Sutherland, partner and head of Modern Families at Burgess Mee Family Law considers the decision.