Pension Sharing?

According to the Ancillary Relief Handbook -
about GW v RW [2003 EWHC 611 Nicholas Mostyn QC] Judge Roger Bird writes:
"a more contemporary approach can be derived from GW v RW [Financial Provision: Departure from Equality] where it was held that where a marriage moves seamlessly from cohabitation to marriage it was unrealistic and artificial to treat the periods differently"
I'm certain your transition was seamless.

Ultimately Judges are invited by barristers to consider case-law in order to strengthen whatever their particular argument might be.
As a self repper I was informed by my ex-wife's counsel that they would be relying on Rossi-V-Rossi, they even supplied me with a copy of the judgement on the day of the final hearing. Fortunately for me the FH was adjourned and I had time to read up on the case, finding to my amazement that the case could actually work in my favour rather than against me. Whilst reading up the case I also came across Maskell-V-Maskell which dealt with how a judge had wrongly traded off the future value of a pension against the present value of the marital home.
As 'hadenoughnow' states, it is not helpful quoting case-law to a LIP but it is something that a LIP can expect to have to deal with, especially nearing the final hearing.
I am by no means a 'legal eagle' but I did not find it difficult to google case-law relating to pensions and use some of what I found to my advantage.
Is there is somewhere on Wikivorce that gives a laypersons guide to specific cases?

Regards, leo

The wiki library has about 30 cases with the conclusions written in plain English, family law week a blog site is also a very useful resource, the guy who started the site is a none practicing solicitor who takes case law and draws useful conclusions again written in plain English.

maggie, I think in this particular case co-habitation before marriage is a bit academic. The relationship was long and whether it was 20 or 23 years isn't go to make much difference, if any.

I thank you all so much for your kind time in replying and for all the useful information contained therein. I appreciate it so much.

For some strange reason I am worried about revealing too much personal info on here, as I don't know if he is a member? However, I am at the point now where I am so anxious and upset by the whole thing, and now on my own dealing with it, I will have to take the risk.

My details are:
Him 64 Me 51 No children of the marriage
Started co habiting in 1981 and purchased a jointly owned home together. Married in 1984. Moved abroad in 2002. He left me in 2003 and returned to UK.
His income is a police pension in payment of £1,800 net of tax a month. He also works part time in a couple of jobs 'on the black' so that cannot be taken into account.
My income is a small residual renewal income from my business in UK which amounted to £3, 300 last year.
His assets : 4 bed detached house worth I guess £300,000.Car is BMW with personal plate and leather seats. His form E says worth £2,000. (I would take it as part of settlement at that value!).
Mine: Old still to be renovated property, worth 160,000 euros, which is c. £130,000. Car is a 28 year old Peugeot 205, worth ,maybe £200.
No joint assets as everything including MH sold in 2004 (MH sold for 440,000 euros, which at that time was worth c. £300,000). Car and all savings. All these assets split in the ratio of 50:50
His liabilities: He has raised mortgages against the equity in his home to finance holidays, cars, TVs etc and these debts now total £120,000.
My liabilities: None.

He retired from the police after 30 years service in May 1997. I continued to run my very successful business which financed a lavish lifestyle until 2002. He drove a Corvette, as well as a BMW and Jeep Cherokee. We had numerous holidays including Barbados, Thailand, Florida. In effect, for 5 years my income supported us.

His police pension CETV is £465,000. Via his solicitor he has offered me a one-off lump sum of £30,000 as full and final settlement.

As my need for income is desparate I am seeking a pension earmarking order. I understand all the pitfalls with this arrangement, but I don't see that I have any other option?

Once again, I thank you for your time in reading this and all comments will be gratefully received

BD

Sorry, in my haste to get all this info down, I forgot to mention maybe the most salient point!

I have from Day 1 been seeking a 50% share of the pension in payment, everything else having been divided in this ratio.

My husband via his solicitors is arguing that:
a) my share be based upon years married during the pension accrual i.e from 1984 to 1997 (the year he retired)
I do not agree with this formula. However, if this argument does hold any water, I would want included the 3 years of co habitation, bringing the years to 16 and not 13. Also, as the police scheme is a 'fast accrual method' I believe that this should be taken into account.

The police pension scheme is a 60th scheme, but in the last 10 years of service, it is accrued at twice the rate. I.e first 20 years is 1/60 and then last 10 is 2/60.

My argument is that I was married to him during this most lucrative pension accrual period and this should be reflected in my share? After all, if he had left the police after 14 years as a 'plod' his pension would be nothing like it is as a fully serving 30 year officer, encouraged and supported by me to get promotion and retire with the rank of Inspector.

His solicitor is trying to bully me into accepting either
a) the one off sum of £30,000
or
b) a pension share of 465,000/30 x 13 divided by 2, to be left in the scheme as a deferred pension until I am aged 60

Now I have disclosed the full facts, does anyone think I am completely mad to battle on?

Once again, thanks peeps

£30k cash lump sum is nowhere near a fair swap.
Going by what we can garner about the circs and in the way of precedent/long marriage/the 50/50 share already accepted by him - I think you're right to pursue 50% of the £21,600 pa net pension income.
They will say you can work/still accrue some pension/ - they'll compare your income needs and his and chisel the share.