header-logo header-logo

Is cash king?

27 June 2014 / Ferdinand Lovett
Issue: 7612 / Categories: Opinion , Divorce
printer mail-detail
lawinheadlines_lovett

Ferdinand Lovett considers the potential impact of the recent Budget changes on pensions on divorce

Courts dealing with divorce settlements have historically treated the pension rights of either divorcing party differently from other assets, such as savings, shares or property. For the time being, this makes sense: pension rights are, in most cases, illiquid assets in comparison to other forms of property. They are used to obtain a stable future income stream rather than cash for the here and now.

But will this all change from April 2015, if the proposed liberalisation of the rules governing access to defined contribution (DC) pension savings hit the statute books in substantially the same shape as set out in the 2014 Budget? Certainly, the recent Queen’s Speech indicates this is still the plan (“Legislation will be brought forward to give those who have saved discretion over the use of their retirement funds.”)

Broadly, it is proposed that everyone will have the flexibility to take their DC benefits from age 55 “whenever and however they wish”, regardless of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll