Pension Sharing Orders On Divorce Are Underused, New Research Suggests

Posted

A study published by Cardiff Law School has revealed that a low number of Pension Sharing Orders are being made on divorce.

The study made the following findings, in addition to many others:

In 20% of the court file cases surveyed, neither party disclosed any relevant pension (a pension other than a state pension).
66% disclosed one or more relevant pensions for either husband or wife or both but no pension orders were made.
14% included one or more pension orders.
All pension orders in the court file sample except two were in favour of the wife.
Pension orders were associated with a relatively wealthy socio-economic group when compared to parties in cases with pensions but without pension orders.
Pension orders were strongly associated with older couples and longer marriages.
Pension orders were also more likely to be made in cases in which both parties were legally represented. 23% of cases in which both parties were represented included a pension order compared to 8% of cases in which only one or neither party was represented.
Offsetting the pension against non-pension assets (where the party with the pension retains it and the other party is given other assets in return) was far more common than pension orders and was said to be popular with the parties themselves.

The study’s final conclusions were:

“Pension sharing was a positive addition but remains an under-used financial remedy on divorce and the prerogative of a relatively privileged minority. Although it is usually the wives who are the beneficiaries of pension orders, overall it is the husbands who tend to fare better on the income and pension provisions in final orders and the wives on the capital provisions. Greater rigour and transparency in relation to pension disclosure and the intended effect of final orders might reveal, and thus help to redress, some of this gender imbalance. Tighter regulation of statutory time limits and fees for the provision of pension valuations and implementation of pension orders would make pension orders a more affordable remedy for a wider section of the divorcing public. Better training on pension issues and financial remedies would benefit both practitioners and judges. More guidance from case law on pension issues would undoubtedly assist all concerned.”