Maskell v's Maskell

This case keeps being repeated by his sol who argues our pensions should not be taken into account because of Maskell case.
X's CETV value of just under 200k should not be taken in account despite the fact we have been married 19 yrs whilst he accumulated it. My CEV is 10k over last 3 yrs.

Can anyone comment on this for me?

This arguement by his sol is not valid.

Maskell vs Maskell - set a precedent that a pension should not necessarily by traded off against other assets at its full CETV value. Because it is not realisable today then a 200K CETV pension is not worth the same as 200K cash or a 200K house - cos you cant sell it and spend it.

But it certainly does not mean it is worth 0k or that you have no claim to it.

Its a grey area cos there is no agreement on how much a 200K CETV pension is worth. Some say as low as 25% of CETV - but more likely 50 to 80% of CETV.

It also depends how old you are - a 200K CETV pension is a great asset for a 59 year old - but not of great immediate value to a 25 year old.

You should push ahead with your claim against his pension. It would not be unusual for you to be awarded 1/3 of his pension (and 70k is not to be sneezed at)

Thats on top of your share of the other assets.

Again its not unusual that a court would award 70% of house to wife with kids plus 30% of pension. She can then trade the 30% pension to get 100% of house and 0% of pension.

Thank you....
This confirms what downbutnotout has told me.

I realise that solicitors are acting in their clients best interests, but reason and logic have long since left the equation. The words "head and brick wall" come to mind.

Ok Judge, I await your casting vote....

I need a holiday!

Pensions, pensions pensions. I for one HATE the mere mention of the word!

Any advice or likely outcome to my situation would be most welcome!

Husbands pension, verbal agreement with 1st wife... She would make no claim on his pension, if he took on the responsiblities of all debts (negative equity and debts amounting to 101K, his CETV at the time £160k) and children, he would let her leave with her own pension and a clear slate to move on, he would not ask for help with maintenance for Child. (she denies she has a pension, but finally admitted at FDR (15 months after filing form E) she did, but its not worth much! so she says!!!!) This all happened in 2002 divorce absolute.
In 2004 i married him, he was a financial mess, kids had by this time left home.
In 2004 just after we married, low and behold a letter dropped on the mat from her solicitors starting ancilliary relief proceedings against him.
Stage we are at now...........
she wants 70% of his FINAL pension, she wants SM, although living with a fella and has been able to support herself for 5 years!! And 45k cash lump sum.
At FH her barrister said his client should have 70% of his pension based on Rossi v Rossi! My husband says she should have 50% of his pension from the time he was married to her. But he also thinks it should be reduced by whatever she owed him in debts. (but just to end it would be prepared to give her the 50%) They argue that his pension wouldnt be worth what it is now, if not for her contribution....and so wants 70% of todays value. (He retires in 5 years so it accumilates at a quicker rate for last ten years of it, he was married to her for the first 20 years of it)
Anyway Judge ruled more questions needed to be asked of the pension e.report that was done (at a cost of £500 + vat) as it did not include me, the second wife. (which we have been trying for 15months to tell her and her solicitor) Judge ruled that as soon as absolute was done in 2002 she no longer had any rights to the widows pension and that part of it was now mine! Her barrister argued that his client,the 1st wife, should have her part first then i could claim what was left! Judge said No way... this pension belongs to two people now the 1st wife and the 2nd wife!!!! hahahah then corrected herself and said O sorry 3 people! it belongs to the husband aswell!!! (poor sod i say! hahahh he works for it, he pays for it!and o he has a right to it!)
Anyway today we find out that for 6 questions to be asked of the first report, it is going to cost ANOTHER £470!!! Nice hey?
Can anyone give even a little guess as to what the most likely outcome would be?
I would so appreciate any answer. Because i am at a loss. Does it mean she would likely get more of the pension to make up for the fact she lost rights on Absolute? or does it mean the her part of the pension entitlement would have to be reduced, as i now own part of it? Judge also said she wants the CETV value of his ex wifes pension, when barrister challenged this based on it not being worth much, and they cant find out who the pension is with, Judge replied it still needs to be taken into account!

Sorry its a long one.
kind Regards
Louise