KM v CV [2022] EWFC 1741 March 2023

Published: 14/03/2023 09:00

HHJ Robinson. Case concerning pensions where neither party had any capital. FMH had been sold with £10,000 left after payment of mortgage and costs.

Case concerned treatment of W’s two police pensions. Pension expert, Mr Nobbs, concluded equalisation of income would be inappropriate as there was a loss of £90 in income to the W for every £10 increase for the H. Mr Nobbs suggested a pension attachment order. H sought two lump sums of £10,000.

Findings had been made at previous hearings as to contributions. Consideration was given to the W’s need to supplement her income between her retirement from the police and reaching state pension age. H reliant on benefits and the court was assisted by Mr Nobbs in the impact of any order on H’s benefits.

The judge found that it was plainly not a case for a pension sharing order and that a lump sum to the H of £10,000 would make a significant difference to H’s needs. The judge also found that the W was likely to retire at 55, at which point she could take a lump sum from her 2015 pension and pay from it without compromising her finances.

An earlier hearing in this case is summarised here.


©2023 Class Legal
Class Legal


Share this

    Most read