Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

ANCILLARY RELIEF/PENSIONS: Martin-Dye v Martin-Dye [2006] EWCA Civ 681

Sep 29, 2018, 16:14 PM
Slug : martin-dye-v-martin-dye-2006-ewca-civ-681
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 1, 2006, 04:18 AM
Article ID : 85131

(Court of Appeal; Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Thorpe and Dyson LJJ; 25 May 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

The judge divided assets of £6.3m: 57% to the wife and 43% to the husband. The wife's share included her pension of £100,317 and the husband's share included his pension of £940,490. The husband argued that this outcome was not fair, because pensions in payment were different in kind to other assets and should have been apportioned.

There were obvious distinctions between a technical value ascribed to a pension in payment and a market value ascribed to a realisable asset such as a freehold, a portfolio of shares or a work of art. In dividing the available assets between the parties, the judge had ignored the essential differences between saleable property and an income stream derived from an inalienable pension in payment. Leaving the husband with the vast majority of the pension in payment as a major share of his property had not been fair. The court should have made a pension sharing order, so that the couples pension rights were divided 57% to the wife and 43% to the husband, with consequential adjustments in the division of the other assets, so that they too were shared 57% to the wife and 43% to the husband.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from