- In 2014, Moylan J made a final order in W’s claim for financial relief pursuant to Part III of the MFPA 1984, albeit W’s application for a pension sharing order was adjourned.
- As part of the 2014 order, H was required to pay a lump sum of £350,000 to W.
- H failed to pay the lump sum to W. In 2015, upon W’s application for enforcement, Moylan J made a pension sharing order in W’s favour as well as an order for the sale of property from which interest on the unpaid lump sum would be paid.
- H appealed the 2015 decision on the following grounds:
- The pension sharing order (to reflect H’s non-compliance) was effectively an impermissible variation of the lump sum order.
- It was wrong as a matter of discretion to have recourse to H’s pension by way of enforcement.
- His Lordship had been wrong to fix the pension share at a percentage which represented the unpaid lump sum pound for pound.
- The order for the payment to W of the accrued interest out of the proceeds of sale of an additional property amounted to an impermissible variation of a lump sum order.
- H’s appeal was dismissed on all grounds and a (very modest) costs order was made against him.
- Given the way in which the 2014 order had been expressed, Moylan J plainly had jurisdiction to make a pension sharing order and supplemental orders by way of enforcement in his 2015 order.
- The judge had the “pound for pound” point in mind when fixing the share. He did not have to require expert actuarial evidence in order to produce a perhaps more precise calculation.
- The order for sale of additional properties to cover the accrued interest was an order made by way of enforcement, which the judge had jurisdiction to make. It was not a variation of a lump sum order or a new lump sum order.