In the great tapestry of matrimonial finance, pensions occupy a peculiar space: part asset, part future security, and part enigma. They are the “silent witnesses” of divorce—a form of wealth whose complexity often outpaces the urgency of its division. Recent nationwide delays in obtaining Cash Equivalent Transfer Values (CETVs) from pension providers have only added to the challenges, threatening to undermine both fairness and efficiency in the resolution of the financial aspects of divorce.

Pensions in the Landscape of Divorce

English law approaches the division of matrimonial assets with a firm commitment to fairness, guided by section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The statutory checklist demands consideration of all resources, needs, and contributions, including pensions. However, unlike tangible assets such as property, pensions often lack immediate accessibility, leaving them as “shadow assets,” the value of which may only materialize in the distant future.

The introduction of pension sharing orders in 2000 marked a significant shift. For the first time, courts could split pension rights at the point of divorce, offering a clean break solution where appropriate. But the mechanics of implementing such orders hinge on accurate information, with the CETV being the critical measure of a pension’s value. Without this, even the most well-intentioned attempts at equity are left adrift.

The CETV: A Necessary Evil?

A CETV represents the capitalized value of a member’s accrued pension benefits. In theory, it provides a standardized figure to aid in negotiation or adjudication. Yet, as any practitioner knows, a CETV can be as misleading as it is helpful. Defined benefit schemes, in particular, often undervalue the true worth of the pension, raising questions about whether a simple transfer value can ever adequately reflect long-term financial security.

Nonetheless, the CETV remains a statutory prerequisite, particularly where pension sharing or offsetting is under consideration. But recent delays in obtaining these valuations—caused by factors including regulatory changes, staffing shortages, and increased demand—have turned this necessity into a source of frustration.

The Problem of Delay

The current delays in CETV production, often stretching six months or more, have profound implications for divorce cases. Financial remedy proceedings are governed by a principle of proportionality, yet the procedural timetable is thrown into chaos when the court must await a delayed CETV. This disrupts settlement negotiations, increases costs, and prolongs the emotional toll of litigation. Worse still, in cases where market conditions shift during the waiting period, the CETV provided may no longer reflect reality.

For many couples, these delays create a Catch-22. Without the CETV, pension rights cannot be accurately valued or divided. But postponing resolution while waiting for a valuation risks leaving the parties in financial limbo. Practitioners are left to grapple with a system that demands precision yet fails to provide the tools necessary to achieve it.

Legal and Practical Responses

Faced with such delays, the court retains some flexibility. Interim hearings may consider alternative approaches, such as instructing an actuary to prepare an estimated value based on available information. Yet, these solutions are rarely ideal. The cost of expert evidence can be prohibitive for many litigants, and any estimate is inherently speculative, requiring later adjustment when the CETV finally arrives.

The Matrimonial Causes Act allows for “pension offsetting,” whereby the value of the pension is exchanged for other assets, such as a greater share of the family home. However, offsetting depends on a reliable valuation and carries its own risks, particularly where the pension is of a type or value that makes direct comparison difficult. The delays in obtaining CETVs thus threaten to undermine even this fallback mechanism.

The Need for Reform

The law’s handling of pensions in divorce is now, in many cases, a tale of “good intentions gone awry.” While the principle of fairness remains key, the practicalities of achieving it are increasingly obstructed by systemic inefficiencies. The solution, as ever, lies in reform.

First, pension providers must be incentivized—or compelled—to produce CETVs within a reasonable timeframe. Regulatory oversight could play a role here, ensuring that delays are minimized and that accurate information is made available promptly. Second, greater reliance on actuarial estimates could be formalized, allowing courts to proceed without undue delay. Finally, enhanced training and guidance for practitioners would ensure that the nuances of pension valuation are better understood, reducing the risk of error or unfairness.

Conclusion

Pension valuations, like justice itself, must not only be fair but also timely. The current delays in obtaining CETVs are more than a procedural inconvenience; they strike at the heart of the court’s ability to deliver equitable outcomes. While the law provides the framework for fairness, it is for practitioners and policymakers alike to ensure that the machinery of justice is fit for purpose. After all, “The pursuit of truth is a noble endeavour—but it must not become an endless one!”

How can we help?

At TV Edwards, we understand that dealing with pensions during a divorce can be complex, frustrating, and time-consuming. We are here to provide expert guidance and support throughout the entire process, Contact our highly experienced Family team for further advice. Call 020 3440 8000 or email family@tvedwards.com. We are here to help.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.