header-logo header-logo

10 July 2019
Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Confusion about pensions & divorce highlighted

Many individuals who divorce are losing out due to a lack of understanding of pensions, lawyers have warned.

Last week the Nuffield Foundation’s Pension Advisory Group (PAG) published 'A Guide to the Treatment of Pensions on Divorce' for family lawyers and the public. PAG is composed of judges, lawyers, actuaries, financial planners and academics.

Withers partner James Copson, a co-author of the guide, said: ‘Before pension sharing was introduced in 2000 many women lost out on divorce because they could not share their husband's pension.  

‘In the years since a lack of understanding of the complex issue of how to deal with pensions on divorce has meant that they have lost out once more. What worries me is that, when the waves roll back to uncover the true financial impact of the profession's failings on the subject of pension sharing, there will be a tidal swell of negligence cases against lawyers. 

‘Very few family lawyers really get to grips with the true value of a couple's pensions both at the outset and when negotiating financial awards.’

Meanwhile, the Law Society has called on the government to cut the current £550 court fee for divorce applications.

Giving its written evidence to the bill committee on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill, the society said the fee added an extra financial hurdle to what was already a costly process. Law Society president Simon Davis said: ‘The government’s new online divorce system will cut the cost of administration for the courts and this should be reflected in application fees.’

The Bill introduces ‘no fault’ divorce, the option to file a joint divorce petition and a 26-week notice period instead of the current two- or five-year separation period.

Issue: 7848 / Categories: Legal News , Divorce , Family , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll