Pension Valuations and Sharing After Standish v Standish

Key points

* A recent court case, BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 (B), shows how judges are now splitting pensions between the portion built up during the marriage and the portion built up before it.

* The judge worked out the 'marital' share of the husband's pension by looking at when contributions were made, then asked whether the pre-marital pension had been treated as a shared asset by both parties.

* Growth on a pre-marital pension does not automatically belong to both spouses. The court focuses on how the couple actually treated the pension, not just how much it grew.

* For anyone going through divorce, this means the split of pensions is less predictable than before. Evidence of what was discussed, planned, and agreed about retirement matters more than ever.

* Getting specialist advice early, and considering a pre- or post-nuptial agreement, gives people with significant pension savings the best protection.

The Supreme Court's decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 changed how courts decide which assets are shared on divorce. The recent case, BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 (B), is the first to apply that reasoning specifically to pensions. The result gives a picture of what courts will now do when a pension has been built up partly before and partly during a marriage.

The case involved a 15-year marriage, His Honour Judge Hess had to work out what portion of the husband's pensions was truly 'marital' wealth, and whether any of the pre-marital pension had been brought into the shared pot.

What Standish v Standish changed

When deciding a Financial Settlement Order, the court will use section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which lists the factors a court must weigh up when making its decision. Cases such as White v White [2000] UKHL 54 and Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24 established the principle that assets built up during the marriage should generally be shared equally (the sharing principle).

Standish refined this. The Supreme Court confirmed that where an asset came from matters more than whose name it is in. Assets acquired before the marriage, inherited assets, or assets kept entirely separate are called 'non-marital' assets. They only enter the sharing exercise if they have been 'matrimonialised', meaning both parties came to treat them as shared wealth over time. The fact the assets have increased in value does not necessarily make them matrimonialised.

Many people build up pension savings long before they marry. After Standish, a spouse seeking a share of that pre-marital pension must show that the couple genuinely treated it as a joint resource. Simply pointing to the fact it grew during the marriage is no longer sufficient.

How the court handled the pensions in BS v HC

The husband held substantial pension savings, including a large SIPP (a self-invested personal pension), much of which pre-dated the marriage. The judge worked through the legal issue of dividing the pension in three steps:

1) How much of the pension accrued during the marriage?

2) Did the couple’s behaviour give rise to an assumption that they regarded the pension as matrimonial property?

3) How should the pension be shared to meet the wife's needs and fairly reflect the marital wealth.

Around 55% of the pensions was treated as marital. On the pre-marital portion, the judge found no clear evidence that the couple had planned for retirement jointly with the whole pension in mind. The husband had not drawn on it to fund a shared lifestyle, and there were no agreed retirement plans that pointed to joint ownership. The pre-marital element therefore stayed non-marital.

The result was a pension sharing order of 27.5% of the husband's Quilter SIPP in favour of the wife. That order sat alongside a lump sum of £724,654 and each party keeping a property, giving the wife a housing position and a fund of around £375,000 to support living costs of roughly £60,000 to £65,000 a year.

What this means for you

Anyone going through divorce where the financial settlement includes pre-marital pension assets, BS v HC provides the following guidance.

Only the marital portion of a pension is automatically available for sharing. Pre-marital pension savings will usually remain with the person who built them up, unless there is real evidence that the couple treated the whole pension as belonging to both of them. The kind of evidence that can show this includes:

* Regular conversations and agreed plans to use the pension to support both spouses in retirement.

* Both parties structuring their work and saving decisions around that pension.

* Pension income being spent for joint benefit in a way that signals shared ownership.

The flexibility around the court’s ability to consider financial remains in tact. Even where a large slice of a pension is non-marital, a judge can still order a generous pension share if genuine need is established, particularly after a long marriage where one party has limited future earnings.

Pre- and post-nuptial agreements that address pensions clearly, and good financial planning records, can significantly reduce later disputes. For those with independent wealth or significant pension savings, getting advice from an experienced Family Law Solicitor before or during the marriage is the most reliable form of protection.

FAQs

How did Standish v Standish change the treatment of pensions on divorce?

Standish v Standish confirmed that where an asset came from matters more than whose name it is in. A pre-marital pension only enters the sharing exercise if the couple treated it as a shared resource over time. Growth during the marriage is not enough on its own.

What did the court decide about the pensions in BS v HC?

The court treated around 55% of the husband's pensions as marital wealth and declined to treat the pre-marital portion as matrimonialised. The wife received a 27.5% pension sharing order over the husband's Quilter SIPP, alongside a lump sum and a property, to meet her assessed needs.

Does growth on a pre-marital pension count as marital property?

No, growth on a pre-marital pension is not automatically marital property after Standish. The court asks how the pension was actually used and treated by the couple. Growth, without shared treatment, does not change its non-marital character.

What evidence shows that a pension has been matrimonialised?

Useful evidence includes records of joint retirement planning, use of pension withdrawals for joint purposes, and consistent treatment of the pension as a shared asset. A detailed witness statement and, where needed, a pension expert report distinguishing pre-marital from marital accrual will usually be required.

How should I approach pension issues in a financial settlement?

Get accurate pension information early, including a cash equivalent transfer value (CETV), and take specialist advice on which portions are genuinely marital. Consider documenting your intentions through a nuptial agreement if you have significant pension savings. Early advice on divorce financial settlements puts you in the strongest possible position.

By Stephanie Howard

About the author:
Stephanie is a qualified Solicitor and Head of the Family and Litigation Department at Pearcelegal. Her SRA number is 432274 and she is a member of the Law Society of England and Wales. She has extensive experience advising clients on all aspects of family law, including divorce, financial settlements and arrangements for children, as well as contentious probate and general litigation matters.

After obtaining her law degree and completing her postgraduate training in Leicester, Stephanie joined Pearcelegal in 2014. She became an Associate in 2021 and was appointed Head of Department in 2025. Drawing on over a decade of practical experience, she is dedicated to helping families achieve fair and practical solutions in complex legal situations.

This article should not be relied upon as legal advice.