header-logo header-logo

23 September 2020
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Family , Pensions
printer mail-detail

Brexit countdown on pensions

The clock is ticking for obtaining effective UK pension sharing orders after an overseas divorce once the Brexit transitional period ends on December 31, practitioners are warning

The Ministry of Justice says it is considering what changes to the law might be required to allow divorcing couples outside England and Wales to obtain pension sharing orders.

However, Michael Allum and Stuart Clark, partners with International Family Law Group, say they have been pressing the government for many years to change domestic law to fill the gap and they are concerned whether it can now be done in time.

Without that change, couples living and domiciled abroad will no longer be able to obtain a UK pension sharing order and may have to revisit settlements or negotiations to achieve a fair outcome.

The issue arises because, while the English family court has the power to make financial orders - including pension sharing orders - after an overseas divorce, there has to be a sufficient connection through habitual residence or the domicile of one spouse in England for the courts to be able to make the order. 

Allum and Clark say this will present a ‘real difficulty’ for international families who no longer have that connection.  It is currently possible to use a residual power within the EU Maintenance Regulation to make needs-based orders, including pension sharing orders, on an exceptional basis, provided the courts of no other EU Member State have jurisdiction. But that will end when the transition period ends.

‘While we welcome the MoJ's commitment, our firm has been calling for this change in the law throughout the Brexit discussions,' they say. 

‘But time is now short so we strongly encourage any couples and their lawyers presently working out divorce financial arrangements which may involve sharing a UK pension to make sure an order is obtained before the end of the year. If not, they may be forced to revisit settlements which have been reached or are in the process of being negotiated to find alternative ways of achieving a fair distribution of assets without including any pensions administered in England.’

Meanwhile, research shows judges and family practitioners are changing tack in their approach to pensions sharing, following Pensions Advisory Group recommendations last year. Read more here

 

 

Issue: 7903 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Family , Pensions
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll