- Everything (69)
- Model letter (0)
- Practice note (0)
- Precedent (0)
- Uploads (0)
- Tools (1)
- Article (1)
- Case note (15)
- News (13)
- Polls (0)
- CPD course (0)
- CPD diploma (0)
- Training note (0)
- Webinar (13)
- Downloads (0)
- Form (7)
- Judgment (19)
- Practice direction (0)
- Rule (0)
- SI (0)
- Statute (0)
- International regs (0)
- The wife appealed from an order that had reduced the lump sum awarded to the husband from £814,000 to £733,650 (£630,000 and £550,000 net after payment of capital gains tax) and reduced the husband's pension share from 48.6% to 34%. The wife had retained 73% of the non-pension assets plus the balance of her pensions. Both the district judge and the judge had considered that a significant departure from an equal sharing of the matrimonial assets was justified. Following receipt of the judge's judgment both the husband and the wife had sent what were said to be requests for clarification. The judge concluded that these requests were in fact an impermissible "critique of the judgment and an attempt at further argument". In Moylan LJ's view, the judge had clearly decided that it was too late for further evidence to be adduced, and this decision was one which had been open to him and it had not been shown to be wrong. Parties should not expect a judge to permit further evidence to be adduced at such a late stage of the proceedings, particularly following an appeal. Lewison and Nugee LJ agreed, and the wife's appeal was dismissed. Judgment, 01/02/2021, free
- An appeal in financial remedy proceedings, regarding pension sharing and section 28(1A) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The parties were married in 2005 and separated in 2017, with one daughter who now lived with the mother. The wife argued that the overall order was not fair to her, and that the pension share was too small. Despite his concerns about the apparent ring fencing of the pension pot, HHJ Richard Robinson concluded that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusions that he did on the evidence that he heard, and that there were no sufficient reasons to interfere with his decision. He came to the same conclusion regarding the section 28(1A) bar. Judgment, 26/06/2020, free
- An appeal against a decision in financial remedy proceedings. Leave to appeal had been granted on limited grounds: whether the husband had made contributions to the mortgage, and whether the right approach had been taken to the valuation of the wife's pension. The parties married in 2008 and separated in 2011, and had been in a relationship since 1988. HHJ Richard Robinson found that the husband was unable to show any bank statements which did not align with the judge's findings, and hence decided that there was no merit in the first ground of appeal. As to the second ground, he found that there were difficulties with the judgment. The judge had been aware of the husband's health issues but dismissed them as irrelevant to an assessment of his future needs. The judge appeared to have been "led into error by an over-emphasis on the non-matrimonial accrual of part of the pension and of contributions over needs". The correct approach would be to analyse the parties’ comparative income and needs in retirement, and thus the extent to which the wife’s pension should be apportioned. A complete rehearing would be excessive; a directions hearing would be held to decide the next steps. Judgment, 15/06/2020, free
- The financial remedies proceedings arising out of a divorce. The husband was a litigant in person. HHJ Hess ordered a spousal periodical payments order of £1,138 pcm, rising to £1,300 pcm in 2021, and £1,500 pcm in 2027, to continue until the death of either party, the wife's 60th birthday, or her remarriage. Top-up orders were made for the benefit of the children, and child periodical payment orders for the gap between secondary and tertiary education. The parties would each retain a 50% share in the family home. Pension sharing orders would provide equal incomes for the parties at a specified time in the future. Neither party had been entirely successful or entirely unsuccessful, and so there was no order for costs. Judgment, 04/06/2020, free
- The husband had moved to Jersey and commenced divorce proceedings there. The wife believed that his reason for doing so was that the family law of Jersey did not provide for making pension sharing orders. A consent order was made providing for a clean break, with the proceeds of selling the matrimonial home to be divided between them on a 55%/45% basis. She then made an application under Part III of the Matrimonial Family Proceedings Act 1984 in England and Wales. Though Jersey was not an overseas country within the meaning of section 12(1)(a) of that Act, the claimant argued that the statute should be construed so as to provide a remedy. The view of Cohen J was that he was being asked to ride roughshod over the statute. Parliament had made the statutory law to be found in the Act and it was for Parliament and Parliament alone to change it if thought appropriate. The wife's application was struck out. Costs would follow the event. Judgment, 07/04/2020, free
- Appeal by HMRC in proceedings where a now deceased wife had deliberately transferred part of a pensions pot to avoid it becoming due to her ex-husband and had also not withdrawn any benefits thus avoiding IHT. Appeal allowed. Judgment, 22/10/2018, free
- Pension sharing used as a tool for enforcement Judgment, 27/07/2017, free
- This case concerned a requirement in the Local Government Pension Scheme (Benefits, Membership and Contributions) Regulations 2009 that unmarried co-habiting partners be nominated by their pension scheme member partner in order to be eligible for a survivor's pension. The survivor must also show that he or she has been a cohabitant for two years before the date on which the member sent the nomination and has been in that position for two years before the date of death. There is no similar nomination requirement for married or civil partner survivors. The Department of the Environment of Northern Ireland included a nomination requirement in the 2009 Regulations in order to ensure “parity” with other local government pension schemes in Scotland and England and Wales, which at the time had similar requirements. The Supreme Court declared that the requirement in the 2009 Regulations be disapplied and that the appellant was entitled to receive a survivor’s pension under the scheme. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free
- Pension sharing pursuant to section 24B of the MCA 1973 is not available in relation to any foreign pension, although other routes could be adopted to achieve direct sharing of a foreign pension. Judgment, 11/11/2016, free
- Appeal by the Trustee in Bankruptcy against the dismissal of his application for an income payments order pursuant to section 310 of the Insolvency Act 1986 in respect of income which might become payable to the respondent from his personal pension policies, were he to exercise his contractual rights under those policies to draw down a lump sum or other payments. The question before the court was: "Does a pension entitlement in respect of which a bankrupt has a present right to elect to draw down payment (but which he has not yet exercised) fall to be included in the assessment of his income: 'to which he from time to time becomes entitled' within the meaning of section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act when the court is considering whether and, if so, on what terms, to make an IPO under section 310?" The court dismissed the appeal. Judgment, 17/10/2016, free