LexisLibrary and LexisPSL
Sign up for a free trial today and get full access for a weekTrial
David Salter, Solicitor, Addleshaw Goddard, Leeds, Manchester and London. Nearly 6 years after the introduction of pension sharing in December 2000, it has become increasingly apparent to family lawyers that guidance from the Court of Appeal on the treatment of pensions in ancillary relief applications is becoming essential. There have so far been a number of instances where tangential guidance has proved possible, for example, Cowan v Cowan  EWCA Civ 679,  2 FLR 192 and Maskell v Maskell  EWCA Civ 858,  1 FLR 1138. In Martin-Dye, pensions occupied centre stage: expectations were therefore high. The opportunity to give general guidance was perhaps limited due to the fact that the pensions involved were already in payment. Nonetheless, the author says that the decision of the Court of Appeal leaves many critical questions unanswered and does, therefore, represent a missed opportunity. The unanswered questions include how should the value of an off-set be calculated? While it cannot be said that the Court of Appeal has given the detailed guidance hoped for in many quarters, the most important aspect of the decision has been to stress the need for expert evidence, where this is proportionate. The author provides a summary of the facts in the case, the legislative background, details regarding the hearing before the district judge and the appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal. See August  Fam Law 666 for the full article.
Click here if you subscribe to the Family Law journal online.
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook this is the first resort for thousands of...