Senior Associate Natalie Nero and Solicitor Charlotte Kirkby recently instructed Ms Sophie Kay of Coram Chambers in a pension enforcement case, AP v TP (Pension Enforcement) [2025] EWFC 190 (B). They represented the Applicant Husband (H).
The case involved what seemed from the outset a relatively simple financial remedy case. A financial consent order was agreed in April 2023, providing for the family home to be sold (with joint conduct) and the net sale proceeds to be divided 47% (H) and 53% (W). However, W refused to cooperate in the sale of the house in accordance with the agreements made in the consent order. As a result, H applied for an enforcement of the Order for Sale and was awarded sole conduct of the sale, and reimbursement of costs of essential work on the property and costs for the enforcing the Order for Sale.
The crux of the matter was W’s failure to cooperate on the Pension Sharing Order (PSO). She was awarded a 48.94% share of H’s Aviva pension. Shortly after the consent order was awarded, W dis-instructed her solicitors. She failed to implement to PSO despite regular attempts and requests from H’s solicitors, Aviva and the court. Her lack of cooperation on the PSO prevented H from taking retirement.
A hearing was held in March 2025 before HHJ Farquhar to examine what to do about a PSO that had been ordered by consent in April 2023 but had yet to be implemented. W did not attend and was not represented. The following options were posited:
- Vary the PSO by reducing the percentage to 0%
- Set aside the PSO
- Vary the PSO to a Pension Attachment Order
HHJ Farquhar concluded that the W had had plentiful opportunity to engage with proceedings, and that the communication to inform her of applications and hearings had been more than sufficient.
The Judge set aside the PSO, giving W 28 days to comply with implementation before it was set aside. The judgment was concluded on the basis that there had been a significant change in circumstances (including change in engagement), and it would be inequitable to not set aside the order.
H was awarded a further £20,000 in cost orders to be paid from W’s share of the family home.