In most matrimonial pension matters, the Cash Equivalent Transfer Value the scheme issues is the right starting point and the right ending point. The CETV is what the member can take if they elect to transfer out; for many cases, that is the relevant figure. There is a category of matter, though, where it isn't — and where treating it as the answer produces an outcome that doesn't stand up when looked at properly.
Where the CETV is fine
For defined-contribution arrangements, the CETV is straightforwardly the value of the member's pot, and using it produces the right answer. For public-sector defined-benefit schemes, the CETV uses factors published by the Government Actuary's Department, applied consistently to both parties; the methodology is articulated by HM Treasury, and using it for matrimonial purposes is internally coherent. For modest matters and for cases where both parties are content, the CETV is also a practical pragmatic answer. None of this is in dispute.
Where it isn't
The category of matter where the scheme's CETV is not the right number is private-sector defined-benefit schemes where the assets are substantial and the matter will be examined carefully. The reason is structural and worth setting out plainly.
A private DB scheme's CETV is calculated by the scheme's actuary on a basis chosen by the trustees, typically reflecting the scheme's own funding position. Different schemes use different bases. The same entitlement, in two different schemes, will produce two different CETVs. This is not a criticism of any particular scheme; it reflects that the CETV is set for the scheme's own purposes, and the basis used for those purposes is appropriate to those purposes.
What the CETV is not is a market-consistent fair value of the member's pension entitlement. The judiciary has signalled that fair value at the date of separation is the appropriate basis for matrimonial purposes, and the difference between the scheme's CETV and a fair value of the same entitlement can be substantial — especially in well-funded private DB schemes. The party whose CETV is being shared is being credited with one thing; the entitlement they hold is something else.
The implementation question
An additional structural feature applies in private DB schemes where the sharing order will be implemented by external transfer. The basis on which the cash actually leaves the scheme is the scheme's CETV basis, while the valuation underlying the order is on a different basis. This produces a structural difference that cannot be removed by careful methodology — it's a feature of how the schemes are operated.
The question is how to allocate this structural difference between the parties. Methodology that does not address this question ends up allocating it implicitly to the giving party. Methodology that addresses it explicitly can articulate a chosen allocation and the reasoning for it. The matters where this matters are those where the assets are substantial enough that the allocation moves the practical outcome.
What to ask of the report
A solicitor on a substantive matrimonial pension matter has a single useful question to ask of any expert report: does the report address what happens at implementation, and does it articulate the allocation choice explicitly? The answer is visible in the report's structure. Reports that have been built for the simpler case — DC pots, public-sector schemes, modest assets — will not address it because they don't need to. Reports that have been built for the harder case will.
Where the assets are substantial and the matter will be examined carefully, the harder case is the relevant one.
Last updated May 2026.