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?
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."