header-logo header-logo

Brexit countdown on pensions

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll