The matrimonialisation of pension assets based on common intention (BS v HC)
Family analysis: The decision in BS v HC establishes that, in sharing cases, the non-matrimonial segment of a pension may still be matrimonialised in certain circumstances. This represents a significant development of the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish which did not address pensions issues in detail. The judgment also makes clear that the court is not bound to deal with pension apportionment issues solely in accordance with the methods delineated in the Pension Advisory Group’s well-known PAG2 report (PAG2). Although a family court judgment at circuit judge level (His Honour Judge Hess), the treatment of the matrimonialisation and apportionment issues is citable, per the 2001 Practice Direction on the citation of authorities and the President of the Family Division’s guidance on the citation of authorities dated 27 February 2025. Given its wide implications, this is an important judgment that practitioners, particularly those assisting high net worth clients, should note. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, examines the issues.