Hello Fiona,
I see your reply to exasperated regarding the pension issue. In my case it went to a Final Hearing my ex-husband was the applicant, he took it as far as this as he refused right from the outset to consider his large pension (compared to mind, e.g his: 79,000, mind:- 11,00).
The Maskell/Norris cases were quoted by his solicitor. My solicitor/barrister did not quote any cases at all, and indeed as a lay person I did not know that the pension CETV could NOT be offset pound for pound until right near the end of negotiations when his solicitor said they could not. They were treated as illiquid assets and the equity in the house (approx 50 thousand each) were treated separately.
My ex at the time intended to re-house himself in the North of England where housing was approx 40 thousand pounds cheaper for the same standard of property. I therefore, and quite rightly, based on the facts before me, made proposals on this basis. We each had a child each. However, my ex husband, at the FDR was enlighted by the fact that the courts would deal with the re-housing of both parties at the time of the
form E being completed and full and frank disclosure made. He was earning 10,000 pounds more a year (as he always had been the main earner) and he was in a relatively cheaper part of the country when it came to re-housing. We each had a child in our care.
Immediately after the final hearing he moved back South.
This moved the goal posts significantly, of course, all my proposals had been true to the facts I had at the time. The final hearing was three months later, and he managed to get the hearing re-located from North to South despite the fact the divorce had been issued by him in a Northern court.
Now, I then had to deal with this change of game plan. As you will know I could not bring any of this to the Final Hearing. My ex conveniently got a job in the South and the courts looked at the housing needs at this time. It was literally a matter of months, he had a CCJ against him and was heavily in debt. But the judge overlooked these facts and still "awarded" him half the equity in the house, but also shared his large pension which he had not been prepared to do at any stage in the proceedings. I think after 20 years and having supported him whilst he was "earning" such a pension I should have been entitled to some of it... I was prepared.. at the time he lived up North to give up this and offset it against the equity in the house. It was at the late stage (a matter of weeks) before the FH that I was told that offseting pound for pound was not seen, in the court's eyes as right. I agree, each case is on it's own merit, but in the case of offseting should there not be some kind of standard guideline so that it can be at least formalised in some way?
I thank you for your wise information on this site, your replies to posts are always very informative and helpful.