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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll