Pension sharing on divorce: the methodological questions matrimonial solicitors raise

The questions matrimonial solicitors raise at intake on pension matters cluster around a small number of substantive methodological points. The questions below treat each one on its methodological merits, not as a procedural matter to dispatch. Where the answer turns on a methodological choice the firm has taken — on fair value versus CETV, on implementation handling, on default allocation rules — the choice is stated explicitly and the reasoning is given.

What's the difference between a CETV and a fair value?

The Cash Equivalent Transfer Value is the figure the scheme issues if a member elects to transfer out. It is calculated by the scheme's actuary on a basis chosen by the trustees, typically reflecting the scheme's own funding position. Fair value is a market-consistent valuation of the member's pension entitlement — the value of the cashflows the member is entitled to, valued on observable market parameters. For DC arrangements, the two are the same; for public-sector DB arrangements, they are aligned; for private-sector DB arrangements, they can differ materially. The judiciary has signalled that fair value at the date of separation is the appropriate basis for matrimonial purposes.

When is a pensions expert required?

A pensions expert is rarely required for DC-only matters where the parties are content with the CETV figures. Most matters of this kind are handled by the solicitors directly using the scheme-issued figures. A pensions expert becomes necessary when one or more of the following applies: the assets are substantial enough that small valuation differences move the practical outcome; one or both parties have private-sector defined-benefit entitlements; the matter is contested and counsel anticipates a methodology challenge; the parties or the court would benefit from an articulable, technically-defensible valuation rather than figures from differently-calibrated sources.

Engagement arrives through two routes. Pre-court — instruction direct from the parties, via mediators, or through solicitors leading settlement negotiations, with the calculation supporting a defensible negotiated outcome. Court-appointed — Single Joint Expert under FPR Part 25, party-appointed expert with leave, or instruction from one party’s solicitor with the procedural protections of CPR Part 35 in place. The calculation is the same across both routes; the procedural context differs.

What should a defensible expert report contain?

An expert report on a pension valuation in matrimonial proceedings should articulate the methodology in plain language, place it explicitly in standard professional practice, and address how the figure relates to the publicly-articulated benchmarks — the trustees' CETV, the FCA's redress methodology, the buy-out market. For private-sector defined-benefit arrangements where implementation is by external transfer, the report should also address what happens at implementation: the structural feature between the basis on which the order is valued and the basis on which the cash actually leaves the scheme. Reports that don't address this leave the case open to the methodology question that opposing counsel is most likely to raise.

What does "fair value at separation" mean?

The valuation is conducted at the date of separation rather than the date of the order or any other date. The convention has settled on this date because it reflects the entitlement the parties hold at the point at which the marriage's financial integration ends, before subsequent contributions or benefits accrue. Fair value — market-consistent valuation on the observable market parameters at that date — produces a number that is methodologically reproducible, is consistent with how the same entitlements would be valued for other regulatory purposes at the same date, and that doesn't require knowledge of post-separation events.

How does the firm handle the gap between fair value and the cash that leaves the scheme?

Where a sharing order is implemented through external transfer of cash from a private-sector DB scheme, a structural feature arises between the basis on which the order is valued and the basis on which the cash leaves the scheme. The firm's default is to treat this feature explicitly and to allocate it equally between the parties — on grounds of symmetry, alignment with the equitable-division principle of UK family courts, and robustness to which party happens to be the donor under the order. Alternative allocations remain available at the parties' instruction; the firm's default is declared explicitly so the choice is articulable in the report.

Can the firm's methodology be applied to mixed DB/DC arrangements?

Yes. The firm's methodology values defined-benefit and defined-contribution arrangements on the same shared market data — same gilt curve, same mortality basis, same inflation curve. Where a member holds entitlements across both, both are valued on a comparable basis without methodological inconsistency between them. This is one of the more common situations in modern matrimonial cases.

Can the firm provide a Single Joint Expert?

Yes. SJE appointments are made to named individual experts — a firm cannot be appointed as Expert in its corporate capacity. The firm makes its pension experts available for SJE appointments, and accepts both SJE and party-appointed expert instructions. Reports are prepared to CPR Part 35 expert duties, FPR Part 25, IFoA APS X3, and equivalent procedural rules. Where the firm’s appointed expert is instructed as SJE, the duties to the court are explicit on the face of the report and signed by the appointed expert personally.

What's the typical timeline?

From instruction to delivered report, three to six weeks is typical for a single-expert engagement on standard documentation. Where data needs to be requested from schemes (PODI requests for transfer values and benefit specifications), the timeline is governed by the schemes’ response times. The firm handles the PODI correspondence directly; solicitors are not expected to manage the data acquisition.

Instructions are typically structured through the firm’s My Congruent portal — a guided intake tool that walks the instructing parties through the substantive questions and accepts uploaded supporting documents. Both parties, mediators, and solicitors can be granted access to the same portal instance with the relevant permissions. The portal is the firm’s mechanism for arriving at unambiguous instructions, and the structured intake is reflected in the level of fees.

How does this relate to the firm's broader work?

The firm’s productised Pension Sharing Order Calculation Service sits within a broader practice covering pension valuations, redress and remediation work, sponsor-side analytics, and Value for Money work under the FCA / TPR regime taking effect from 2028. The Pension Sharing Order Calculation Service is the productised deliverable; the wider Pension on Divorce expert practice — offsetting calculations, methodology in court, and Pension on Divorce Expert (PoDE) work — runs alongside this and is positioned at Expert witness. The methodology is the same across all of these contexts; the regulatory presentation and the procedural intensity differ. For deeper engagement — cross-examination preparation, review by an instructed expert — the senior pensions expert handling the matter is available for direct conversation.

Last updated May 2026.