Matrimonialisation after Standish: BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20 and BC v BC (No 2) Matrimonialisation (Division of Shareholding; Provision for debt) [2026] EWFC 37

BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20

The court considered the extent to which the husband’s pensions had accrued pre-marriage and whether an untouched pension fund accrued pre-marriage could be considered matrimonialised. 

There was a significant disparity in the value of the parties’ pensions. The wife had a small pension with a CE of £33,363 and the Husband possessed two pensions, one of which was valued over £3 million.

Apportionment

The non-pension assets were divided to provide each party with an equal share but the key issue in this case was what constituted a fair division of the parties’ pensions.

HHJ Hess reiterated the decision in Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306, that the court has a discretion to simply apply a broad assessment of the division which would affect overall fairness in cases where the facts are such as to make it impossible or difficult to identify a clear mathematical demarcation line.

The court and the instructed actuary had adopted the approach of the PAG 2 report, in providing a number of different methodologies with the intention of identifying the fairest assessment based on considering these results. The wife submitted that the CE approach was appropriate, but the husband submitted the service approach should be used.

Significantly at [31] HHJ Hess concluded that “although the mathematical analysis is a helpful and important ingredient, the search for fairness requires a broader weighing of the competing arguments. In some cases one of the formulaic approaches might seem fairer, in other cases a different formulaic approach might seem fairer and in other cases a blend of approaches might be fairest”.

Matrimonialisation

The judgment also considered how pensions can be matrimonialised. HHJ Hess recognised that pensions unlike cash or property rarely become mingled in a marriage and often remain an unmixed asset, which is often solely a source of future income [34]. 

The wife sought to rely on a conversation held between the parties in 2013 relating to the purchase of a property where the husband stated “it doesn’t matter that I am not contributing to the purchase price because we will share everything equally in our marriage, everything comes and goes out of the same pot”.

Interestingly at [53] of Standish, the court endorsed the following passage from Duckworth Matrimonial, Property and Finance: “a better view may be that matrimonial property is not something that is predetermined at the outset of a marriage, but is governed by the parties’ intentions and how they treat the relevant asset over a period of time. Thus where a party has demonstrated an intention to use an inheritance for the benefit of the family, by translating it into actual use and enjoyment, the parties have elected to treat it as matrimonial property, even if its origin was from outside the marriage.”

In BS v HC, the husband contended that since his pension fund was untouched, had not yet been translated into ‘actual use and enjoyment’, and had largely accrued pre-marriage this test could not be met. However, HHJ Hess considered this interpretation to be too literal, stating at [34], “An actual use and enjoyment provides a clearer example, but a common intention to put the asset into use and enjoyment in the future could also in my view give rise to matrimonialisation if that intention was relied upon by the other party to his or her detriment”

Despite this, HHJ Hess was not persuaded that the conversation held between the parties in 2013 meant the husband’s pension rights had become matrimonialised. Therefore, an equal sharing of the non-pension assets combined with a 27.5% pension sharing order was deemed fair.

BC v BC (No 2) Matrimonialisation (Division of Shareholding; Provision for debt) [2026] EWFC 37

The husband owned shares valued at approximately £10 million, these had been realised, and the entire sum was spent as if it were joint funds, including in the purchase of jointly held property.

The husband made submissions that there should be a departure from equality in the realm of 5% to ensure a “fair recognition the source of the shares and the unmatched contribution made”

The court’s view was that Standish establishes “that there is no room for a hybrid treatment of assets that have been matrimonialised: they are subject to the same normal rule of equal sharing as other matrimonial assets, and the same limited justifications for departure, for example and perhaps most commonly, to meet needs, which are not relevant in this case. After 18 years of marriage there is no room for an unprincipled, randomly alighted upon, 5% (why not 4% or 6%?) departure from the equal sharing of what I find to be now entirely matrimonial wealth”.

Key Principles

• An untouched pension fund accrued pre-marriage could in theory be matrimonialised and this is not dependent on actual use and enjoyment. However, a party must demonstrate a common intention to put the asset into use and enjoyment for the benefit of the family in the future, relied upon to a party’s detriment (BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20)
• Pension apportionment is not a purely mathematical exercise and will be fact-specific (BS v HC [2026] EWFC 20)
• Matrimonialised assets are subject to the same rules of sharing as other matrimonial assets and the source of the assets does not merit a departure from equality (BC v BC (No 2) Matrimonialisation (Division of Shareholding; Provision for debt) [2026] EWFC 37)