P v P (Inheritance at the End of a Long Marriage) [2026] EWFC 209 (B)

Judgment date: 1 July 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/209

DDJ Hodson makes reserved judgment regarding inheritance received six months post-separation.

Background

The parties, both now 52, married in 2010 having cohabited from 1997 and separated in 2023 after a relationship of approximately 25 years. They had two children, A (20) and B (17). The only non-pension marital asset was the former matrimonial home in Exeter, with an equity of approximately £330,000. On its own, that sum would not comfortably meet both parties’ housing needs. However, six months before the parties’ separation, H’s father died, and he received approximately £310,000 post-separation. The inheritance had transformed the case. Had it been received much earlier in the relationship, it may well have matrimonialised during the marriage; had it been received after the divorce concluded, it would have fallen outside the available resources. Therefore, its arrival meant that consideration had to be given through the needs-based lens.

DDJ Hodson noted his dissatisfaction that such a relatively contained issue required expensive litigation. Combined costs were just under £100,000. It was found that the litigation was fuelled in large part by W’s open position. She sought all the matrimonial non-pension assets, leaving H with only his inheritance. W proposed £250,000 capital plus a pension share, meaning that she would receive her full half share of the home and around £85,000 from the inheritance (roughly 27%). DDJ Hodson regarded her position as unfair and wholly disproportionate, particularly given the accidental timing of H’s father’s death and the fact that the W herself might receive inheritances in future, even though those possibilities were not resources to which any direct value could presently be attached.

W argued strongly that the housing needs of the children were of ‘magnetic importance’, but DDJ disagreed. A was 20 years old, an adult, and although living with W, a needs claim could not be found in law. B was 17 years old, experiencing significant anxiety, had not recently attended school and remained financially dependent. The judge accepted that B’s welfare required consideration under s 25(1), but due to the lack of evidence presented on any special needs or medical circumstances, he held that this did not justify materially ‘skewing the long-term capital distribution’. H’s concession that each party should be housed on a three-bedroom basis was treated as fair and generous. Beyond that, the children’s housing needs did not warrant a substantial further invasion of H’s inheritance.

Health

The decisive factor in this case was H’s health, as he suffered with severe kidney issues. H claimed this would leave him reliant upon private pension and capital were his health to worsen, a position an individual without health concerns would not be in. The judge accepted that he had a reduced life expectancy, diminished earning capacity, and a real prospect that he would be unable to sustain full-time work or work to normal retirement age.

Pensions

That same health evidence also shaped the pensions analysis. H had a pension pot of approximately £240,000, whilst W’s was worth approximately £154,000. W’s position aimed for equalisation of income, a typical approach. H, with his reduced life expectancy, stated the conventional approach in a pension calculation was not appropriate here: he needed pension income now, during the coming years when he could still work only to a limited extent and before state pension age. He therefore sought for an offset.

The judge accepted the argument. Although pensions and non-pension assets should generally be treated separately, the case was found to be one of those unusual situations where offsetting was appropriate. The judgment refers to the PAG guidance, Martin-Dye v Martin-Dye [2006] 2 FLR 901, and W v H [2020] EWFC B10 in support of the proposition that, while offsetting is not to be adopted casually, it may be justified where fairness demands it. H’s reduced life expectancy, his need for current income, and W’s significantly better future pension accrual potential through continued NHS work all pointed away from a conventional pension sharing order. The expert evidence put the relevant pension offset figure at £36,746.

The offers

H offered £235,000 capital; £36,750 was a marital offset of the pension share entitlement, £165,000 was the share in the marital home, and the remaining £33,250 was in respect of the inheritance.

The W sought £250,000; £165,000 was the share in the marital home and the remaining £85,000 was part of the inherited assets of £310,000. W also sought 19.77% of H’s Barclays pension, worth c.£232,000. The difference between the parties’ amounted to just under £52,000.

Order made by DDJ Hodson

The judge considered H’s proposal fair in principle but adjusted it slightly in W’s favour by declining to order a share of the small Standard Life pension, instead awarding her £5,000 in lieu because a pension share over such a modest fund would not be cost-effective.

The judge ordered that W should receive £240,000 capital and no pension share. That sum represented equality in the matrimonial home plus a limited invasion of the inheritance. The judge considered that outcome fair because it recognised equal housing needs, made some allowance for W’s claim upon the overall resources, but preserved the bulk of the inheritance for H’s health-related future needs. It also reflected the conclusion that W’s case for a larger award was not made out by her own housing needs, the children’s circumstances, or any broader fairness argument.

The mechanics of implementation were also important. Because H would probably need to sell inherited properties to raise the lump sum, the award was to be expressed as a percentage of the value of the family home at the date of payment rather than a fixed sum, working out to be roughly 72.8%.

W pursued costs claim based on H’s apparent failure to negotiate reasonably after the FDR. Her application failed as the judge accepted H’s explanation that he was awaiting the updated pension report before making an open offer. Instead, it was found that W had acted unreasonably in refusing initially to agree to the updated pension report and to contribute to the cost. She was ordered to pay H £500 within 14 days, being half of the report fee.

DDJ Hodson held that inheritance should remain non-marital; it is not to be shared merely because the marriage was long but may be invaded to a limited extent if necessary to meet needs. The extent of that invasion will depend on the facts. In this case, H’s serious health concerns, reduced earning ability and need for immediate pension income limited W’s claim.

This judgment has not been certified as citable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.