Pensions
In fact, your pension may be your most valuable asset.
If you are unable to agree with your spouse regarding what happens to any pensions that either of you may have then the Court has wide powers to make orders to determine how any pensions should be dealt with. Although your pension will not be available to you until you retire, it will be given a cash value known as a "pension transfer value" by your pension provider to assist the Court in determining how it should be dealt with. This sum is your pension's value should you decide to transfer it to a different provider. Although this is a cash value, you should remember that it is not quite the same as cash, as obviously you are free to spend any cash you have in the bank as you wish, but money in a pension fund will not be available until some point in the possibly far off future.
If only one spouse has gone to work and the other has remained at home to care for the children, then the spouse who has remained at home is likely to have made no pension provision, but would expect to receive a benefit from the working spouse's pension. Once the marriage ends, this benefit is lost and the spouse without a pension is likely to be very concerned that they do not have a pension nor enough time left to rectify this prior to their retirement. It is therefore likely that the Court will compensate the spouse for this loss.
Alternatively both spouses may have worked and have similar pension arrangements or alternatively have made no pension arrangements at all. In these cases there is probably little need for the Court to consider this issue. If there is a large disparity in the pension arrangements, then there may be a need for the Court to consider making an order regarding pensions.
The Court will consider a range of factors when deciding what should happen to any pension and these are considered in more detail here. The Court will not automatically award the non working spouse half the working spouse's pension, but could consider compensating the non working spouse in other ways, perhaps by awarding them a larger share of the property or a lump sum payment. If there are children for the Court to consider then it is possible that the spouse who cares for the children will be awarded the marital home, while the working spouse retains their pension entirely, to compensate him or her for the loss of the property. This arrangement is known as "off setting" and whether this approach is adopted will depend on the available assets.
Not surprisingly, if there is more to go round it is possible for the Courts to be more imaginative in the use of discretion, but the reality for many couples is that there is little or no savings or investments and the pension represents the only major asset of the marriage, beyond the marital home. In such cases the neat solution of off-setting may be impossible and in which case other options can be considered. In addition, many regard a "solution" that leaves one spouse without provision for the future as unsatisfactory, especially as it is likely to be the spouse who has not been in the workforce and therefore has a decreased chance of building up a pension.
The Court may decide that it is appropriate to "ear mark" part of the pension for the spouse without a pension, although there are disadvantages to this and it is uncommon in practice. More often the Court orders that the pension is spit so that each spouse has a separate and independent pension. This may not be an equal split if the Court decides that this is not appropriate and like everything else in ancillary relief it will depend of the facts of the case. This means that the pensions are completely separate and the benefits can be taken at different times.
This is a very broad brush stroke overview of how any pensions may be dealt with in ancillary relief proceedings and your solicitor will advise you in more detail in the context of the circumstances of your case.
