Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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