header-logo header-logo

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

Is cash king?

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll