The decision of HHJ Edward Hess in BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 (B) is likely to become required reading for family lawyers dealing with pensions and non-matrimonial property claims. Although the case concerned a long marriage with substantial assets, its wider significance lies in the court’s detailed analysis of two increasingly important issues: the apportionment of pension assets and the concept of matrimonialisation following the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26.
The judgment provides a rare and carefully reasoned examination of how pre-marital pension wealth should be treated when its value has increased dramatically during a marriage, and whether such pension wealth can become matrimonial property through the parties’ conduct.
The Background
The parties married in 2009 and separated in 2024 after a relationship of approximately 15 years. There were no children of the marriage. The husband, aged 63, had enjoyed a highly successful business career and had accumulated pension assets worth approximately £3.06 million. The wife, aged 60, had pension provision of only £35,363.
The non-pension assets were relatively straightforward. Both parties accepted that these assets were matrimonial and should broadly be shared equally. The real battleground was the husband’s pension fund and the extent to which it represented matrimonial or non-matrimonial property.
Why Was the Pension Issue So Difficult?
The husband’s pension history was unusually complex.
He had accrued rights in a defined benefit occupational pension scheme long before this marriage began. By the time the parties commenced cohabitation in 2009, the scheme had a reduced cash equivalent value of approximately £180,000. However, by 2021, the value of the pension rights had increased to more than £2.2 million, and by the final hearing the pension fund stood at over £3 million.
The growth was not attributable to a single factor. HHJ Hess identified several causes:
- pre-marital pension service;
- substantial employer contributions aimed at eliminating historic underfunding;
- changes in actuarial valuation methodology;
- economic conditions, particularly low interest rates;
- the husband’s decision to transfer into a SIPP at an advantageous time; and
- subsequent investment growth.
The challenge was determining which proportion of the current pension value represented the “fruits of the marriage” and which remained non-matrimonial.
The Pension Advisory Group and Apportionment
A notable aspect of the judgment is the court’s engagement with the Pensions Advisory Group (PAG2) Report 2024 and the evidence of Richard Nobbs, the single joint expert actuary.
Mr Nobbs analysed the pension using three different methodologies:
| Approach | Pre-2009 | Marriage Period |
| Service approach | 85.6% | 14.4% |
| Funding approach | 19.4% | 80.6% |
| Cash Equivalent (CE) approach | 8.5% | 91.5% |
The striking variation between those outcomes illustrates why pension apportionment is often more art than science. Depending on the methodology adopted, the matrimonial component ranged from approximately 14% to over 90%.
Rather than treating any single methodology as decisive, HHJ Hess endorsed a broader fairness-based evaluation.
A Broad Brush Assessment
Relying in part on the Court of Appeal’s observations in Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306, the judge rejected a purely formulaic exercise.
Instead, he concluded that fairness required a broader evaluation of all the circumstances and ultimately found that:
55% of the husband’s pension should be treated as having accrued during the marriage and 45% outside it.
This aspect of the decision is particularly important. It demonstrates judicial willingness to move away from strict actuarial outputs where the history of the pension is complex and where competing methodologies produce radically different outcomes.
The case reinforces that pension apportionment remains a discretionary exercise informed by evidence rather than dictated by mathematics.
Matrimonialisation After Standish
The second major issue concerned matrimonialisation.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the court considered whether the husband’s pension, even if originally non-matrimonial, had become matrimonial property through the parties’ treatment of it during the marriage.
The wife argued that there had effectively been an understanding within the marriage that all assets were to be shared. She relied in particular upon discussions in 2013 when she contributed a £1.5 million gift from her father towards the acquisition and refurbishment of the family home.
HHJ Hess accepted that the husband had said words to the effect that everything was shared and came from the same “pot”. However, he distinguished general discussions about sharing marital wealth from a specific intention to treat pension rights as jointly owned.
Importantly, he observed that pensions differ from cash and property because they typically remain in the sole name of the member and are rarely “mingled” in the same way as other assets.
The judge therefore concluded that the facts did not satisfy the test for matrimonialisation articulated in Standish. The husband’s pension remained partly non-matrimonial despite the long marriage and the extensive sharing of other assets.
The Outcome
Having found that only 55% of the husband’s pensions should be treated as matrimonial property, HHJ Hess awarded the wife:
- the Bristol property;
- a balancing lump sum of £724,654; and
- a 27.5% pension sharing order against the husband’s Quilter SIPP – but she was to pay only 27.5% of the pension sharing order fees
The judge also concluded that the wife’s reasonable needs were adequately met by that award and rejected arguments for additional provision on a needs basis.
Why This Decision Matters
BS v HC is likely to become one of the most cited first-instance authorities on pension treatment since the publication of PAG2 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Standish.
Three points emerge:
- Pension apportionment is not a purely actuarial exercise
Even where expert evidence is sophisticated and detailed, the court retains a broad discretion to determine fairness. The court may adopt a figure which does not emerge from any single calculation.
- Dramatic growth in pension value does not automatically make the asset matrimonial
The source of the asset remains critical. Where significant pension rights existed before the marriage, substantial protection may remain available despite considerable growth during the relationship.
- Matrimonialisation requires more than general sharing rhetoric
The judgment suggests that courts may apply the Standish principles cautiously in pension cases. General statements about sharing assets and operating as a financial unit may not, without more, convert a pre-marital pension into matrimonial property.
Final Thoughts
BS v HC is a highly significant contribution to the developing law on pensions after Standish. HHJ Hess was expressly authorised to permit citation of the judgment in relation to pension apportionment and matrimonialisation, which itself underlines its importance.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that identifying whether pension wealth is matrimonial property requires a detailed examination of source, growth, funding, timing and treatment throughout the marriage. It also demonstrates that, despite the increasing sophistication of actuarial evidence, family judges remain focused on the ultimate statutory objective: achieving a fair outcome but bear in mind the level of the assets in this case! There was more than enough to go around; this was not a ‘needs based’ case with limited assets. The non-pension assets were significant in value and the pension was even more valuable. This is not a needs based situation and I think if it was, the outcome could have been different because of the limitation of the available assets being stretched to meet need.