pensions added to the pot at 1/4 of CETV?

SK - we're all in the same boat over pensions - you say your X took cash of 12000 and signed to say she did not want pension or any further share of house.
Was it a Consent Order she signed - stamped by the court?

Thanks once again Peter, you know suddenly your reply has lit a light bulb in my head - perhaps because I am reading this in the morning rather than at night.

What you say has been said before, but I believe I can now negotiate understanding the issues much more.

When I get the details of my Xs teachers pension I will run it through your valuation.

SK
My understanding is that the court will start by looking for equality; hence, the usual starting point is 50/50. Some lawyers interpret this as 50/50 of the value of the asset (CETV or independent valuation). Others look at it as equality of the annual income (pension) that the asset will produce.

There are few hard and fast rules. Because the court has considerable discretion, there are local differences of interpretation by District Judges. This inevitably influences the local solicitors who will not get very far arguing a point on which they know the local judges have particular views.

Finally, there is the inequality of lawyers. Some are very good dealing with certain issues – such as pensions. Others may be less knowledgeable and therefore less confident and competent in arguing a specific issue. For an example, see how the Maskell vs. Maskell case is held by some lawyers as establishing a particular point.

No, it is not fair, but then who ever said that life was fair?