What is a Pension Sharing Order?
Pension sharing orders are used to redistribute a couple’s pension provisions following a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. When a pension sharing order is made, the paying party’s pension provider is instructed to transfer a specified percentage of that pension into a pension in the name of the receiving party. The pension is effectively lifted out of the paying party’s pension and paid into a pension belonging to the receiving party so that it becomes their pension to do with as they please. Once implemented, the paying party cannot dictate to the receiving party what they should do with the pension. It is worth remembering however that when a pension is transferred under a pension sharing order, it must be paid into another pension and it cannot be released as cash. A pension sharing order is also not available to couples who have chosen to have a judicial separation rather than a divorce/dissolution.
Related FAQs
Yes. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants Act) 1975 (more commonly known simply as the “1975 Act”) allows certain categories of people to apply to the court for an order for what is known as “reasonable financial provision” in the event that they are either not provided for, or not provided for sufficiently, within a testator’s Will.
Divorce is the main way to legally recognise that a marriage has come to an end. It allows the court to separate a couple’s finances and once granted, the parties are legally separate and able to re-marry again in the future.
Annulments are sometimes an option. Whereas divorce ends a marriage, annulments declare the marriage was not valid in the first place. The grounds for seeking an annulment are very fact specific (such as a lack of consent to marriage) but if it is granted, the parties are separated and it is as if they were never married. The court can however make financial awards similar to those in divorce proceedings after an annulment.
Sometimes couples may not wish to divorce but want legal recognition that they have separated. In such circumstances, they may consider a Judicial Separation. This grants the court powers to make some financial orders similar to those it can make on a divorce (such as spousal maintenance) but not all orders (such as pension sharing). With a Judicial Separation, the parties remain married so they cannot remarry and either party may seek a divorce at a later date.
A final option is to separate but not obtain a divorce. The court will not make any awards so the parties remain married but the parties can enter into a separation agreement regulating their finances. However, if either party seeks a divorce in the future, the court is not bound by the separation agreement and may decide to regulate the couple’s finances in a different way than was previously agreed.
The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:
- The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
- How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
- Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.
The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.
- Trusts should allow for telephone advice rather than face-to-face review from critical care when clinically appropriate.
- Hospitals should discuss the sharing of resources and the transfer of patients between units, including units in other hospitals, to ensure the best use of critical care within the NHS.
Please note, the above is intended to provide a summary of the key recommendations which emerge from this guidance. Access to the full guidance can be found here.
We have developed a Toolkit to help with these issues. The Toolkit contains:
- LO1 How to Guide: Lay off and short time working
- LO2 Letter directing employee to take annual leave
- LO3 Letter confirming lay off (contractual right)
- LO4 Letter confirming short time working (contractual right)
- LO5 Letter proposing lay off (no contractual right)
- LO6 Letter proposing short time working (no contractual right)
- LO7 Counter notice disputing entitlement to claim redundancy payment
- LO8 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (contractual right)
- LO9 Script for announcing lay off or short time working (no contractual right)
- LO10 Letter proposing reduction in working hours and pay
The cost of this Toolkit is £500 plus vat. If you would like to find out more about the Toolkit, please speak to your usual Ward Hadaway employment contact, or get in touch one of the contacts at the bottom of this page.