WS v WS [2015] EWHC 3941 (Fam)

Consideration of how to account for the relative value of pensions in draw down and pensions not in drawdown when offsetting.

Facts

  • A significant portion of the parties’ assets were held in pension funds. It was agreed that they wanted to achieve equality, a full clean break and no pension sharing orders. The court therefore had to determine how to value the respective pension pots against each other.

Held

  • H’s pension made available funds equivalent to cash, which he could extract without difficulty. W’s pension provided a guaranteed but non-transferable income stream.
  • The two could never be directly equated to each other, but that the best method for calculating comparable amounts was to consider the Duxbury amount that would generate a return sufficient to make up the shortfall of future incomes. While this was not a precise science, it was the ‘tried and tested’ method for calculating how a capital transfer can equate to future income.

Stay Up To Date

Follow us on Linkedin to stay up to date with the latest news from 1 Hare Court.