Pension Sharing Order
Martin-Dye v Martin-Dye [2006] EWCA Civ 681
CA
25 May 2006
Daily Law Notes Report Summary
Pensions in payment differed significantly from other assets and,
on divorce, a division of property which left the husband with his
pension in payment as a major part of his share of the property
was unfair and a pension sharing order should have been made.
Per Thorpe, LJ : "A pension in payment was no more than a whole
life income stream akin to an annuity. It could not be sold,
commuted for cash or offered as security for borrowings. It had no
capacity for capital appreciation. The benefit did not survive the
death of the scheme member and thus could not form part of his
estate. Thus there were obvious distinctions between a technical
value ascribed to a pension in payment and a market value ascribed
to a realisable asset such as a freehold, a portfolio of shares or
a work of art. His Lordship had concluded that the district
judge’s order was flawed. In dividing the available assets between
the parties she ignored the essential differences between saleable
property and an income stream derived from an inalienable pension
in payment."