T v T (variation of a pension sharing order and underfunded schemes) [2021] EWFC B67 (10 November 2021)

T v T (variation of a pension sharing order and underfunded schemes) [2021] EWFC B67 (10 November 2021)

The increase in the CE of the husband's pension did not amount to a significant change in circumstances justifying a variation of the pension sharing percentage. The husband's application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of CE and the effect of market changes. The delay in implementing the pension sharing order was largely due to the husband's actions. The wife's application for a declaration was misconceived and should also be dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWFC B67
Parties
Husband/applicant: Mr T; Wife/respondent: Mrs T
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy (variation of Pension Sharing Order) / Final Judgment on Husband's Application to Vary Pension Sharing Order and Wife's Application for Declaration
Outcome
Husband's application to vary pension sharing order dismissed; wife's application for declaration dismissed; costs order made against husband.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedies, Pension Sharing Orders, Variation Applications, Costs Orders
Family Law Financial Remedies Pension Sharing Orders Variation Applications Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr T

Husband/applicant

Mrs T

Wife/respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy (variation of Pension Sharing Order) / Final Judgment on Husband's Application to Vary Pension Sharing Order and Wife's Application for Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the percentage in the pension sharing order should be varied due to changes in cash equivalent (CE) value of the pension since the original order
  2. 2 Whether the wife's application for a declaration regarding uplift in pension value should be granted
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be made against the husband

Ratio Decidendi

The increase in the CE of the husband's pension did not amount to a significant change in circumstances justifying a variation of the pension sharing percentage. The husband's application was based on a misunderstanding of the nature of CE and the effect of market changes. The delay in implementing the pension sharing order was largely due to the husband's actions. The wife's application for a declaration was misconceived and should also be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Husband's application to vary pension sharing order dismissed; wife's application for declaration dismissed; costs order made against husband.

Orders

  • Husband's application dated 21 November 2017 for variation of pension sharing order dismissed.
  • Wife's application dated 15 July 2017 for declaration dismissed.