A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info


What are we each entitled to in our divorce settlement?

What does the law say about how to split the house, how to share pensions and other assets, and how much maintenance is payable.

What steps can we take to reach a fair agreement?

The four basic steps to reaching an agreement on divorce finances are: disclosure, getting advice, negotiating and implementing a Consent Order.

What is a Consent Order and why do we need one?

A Consent Order is a legally binding document that finalises a divorcing couple's agreement on property, pensions and other assets.


Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


cash upfront vs pension split

  • Byza
  • Byza's Avatar Posted by
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
02 Mar 08 #15570 by Byza
Topic started by Byza
Anyone know anything about the maskell vs maskell case for working out the formula for giving pension difference 'up front' as cash to my ex rather than a pension split which would go into his pension pot?

  • maggie
  • maggie's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
03 Mar 08 #15600 by maggie
Reply from maggie
"Christina Morris
Pensions and What Judges Make of Them
Seminar 23 May 2002
Page 7 of 9
www.coramchambers.co.uk/papers/cm_may02_paper.pdf
D.2 Maskell v Maskell [2001] 3 FCR 296

Facts : W H 41
Married (no date given but it was described as a long marriage)
3 children under 14 (there was a shared care arrangement between the H and W alternating weeks with each parent)
Pension CETV ,32,000
Net equity in FMH ,26,000
2 policies total value ,10,000
Decision : At first instance and on appeal to CJ decided that W should have the FMH and a policy worth ,6,000 and the H should have his pension and the other policy worth ,4,000
On appeal Thorpe LJ said that the A.. judge is making the seemingly somewhat elementary mistake of confusing present capital with a right to financial benefits on retirement..... He simply failed to compare like with like. @
Appeal allowed and order of lower court set aside Thorpe LJ made no other order other than to invite the parties to go to mediation
Comment : From a costs point of view this case must be a nightmare and in the end the H and W are still left with no solution other than a suggestion that they go to mediation.
This is case is useful if you act for the H who wants to keep the pension fund off the asset sheet."

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11