Dividing pensions fairly in divorce: A clear look at BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 (B)

Pensions can be one of the trickiest parts of sorting out finances during a divorce. The recent case of BS v HC, in which Deborah Leask represented the wife shows just how flexible the court can be when deciding what part of a pension should be treated as “marital”.

What made this case unusual?

The husband had a £3m pension that had previously been a defined benefits pension (also known as a final salary scheme) with the company of which he was a shareholder and the CEO.  Most of his years of service (21 out of 24 years) had been built up before the marriage, so at first glance, it seemed like only a small part should count as marital. But there was much more to this than appeared at first.

When the couple married, the pension was in a very poor financial state and severely underfunded. During the marriage, the husband’s company paid large sums of money (millions) into the scheme to fix the deficit. As a result, the pension’s value increased dramatically while they were married, even though the husband was not accruing further years of pensionable service. This raised the question of how much of that increase should be treated as marital and therefore equally shareable by the wife. This is called “pension apportionment”.

Two methods, two very different answers

The pension expert instructed on behalf of the parties carried out complex calculations and looked at  pension apportionment in two ways:

• Based on years of service, only a small slice (14.4%) was marital.
• Based on the change in capital value, almost the entire pension (90.6%) was marital.

Both methods were legitimate, but they produced completely opposite results.

How the Judge reached a fair outcome

Faced with two extremes, the Judge did not simply pick one method over the other. Instead, he used his discretion to blend the approaches and reach a fair outcome in the light of all the other circumstances of the marriage, rather than just based on one mathematical calculation. He decided that 55% of the pension should be treated as marital.

This balanced the significant growth of the pension during the marriage due to the vast cash sums injected into the pension, with the fact that most of the underlying years of pensionable service happened beforehand.

Why this case matters

The case is a helpful reminder that:

• Pension calculations in defined benefit pensions can produce very different result depending on the methodologies used
• Calculations provided by pension experts are an important tool, but they do not dictate the outcome
• Judges have wide discretion to reach a fair result based on the bigger picture

Recognition for outstanding work

This case required an expert understanding of pensions and the different ways in which they can be apportioned.  The Judge described Deborah’s client as having been represented by a “first class” legal team. Judicial praise of this kind reflects the exceptional skill, clarity and determination Deborah brings to her cases. Deborah is a pension’s specialist and her work in this matter helped ensure that the Judge fully understood the complexities of the pension and that her client received a fair outcome.

Do you need advice on pensions in divorce?

If you are facing a divorce involving pensions or other complex assets, our family law team can guide you through your options and help you understand what a fair outcome might look like. Get in touch with our team today.