Can a Pension Sharing Order Be Changed After Divorce?

When a marriage or civil partnership ends, the court will often make a Pension Sharing Order (PSO), transferring a percentage of one party’s pension rights to the other. However, individuals often question whether a PSO can be changed after divorce, but because they are designed to be final and binding, there are only limited and fact-specific circumstances in which they may be revisited.

The general likelihood of a pension sharing order being revisited

Once a PSO takes effect and the pension provider implements the transfer, it is generally regarded as final. The policy underpinning this is clear: financial orders on divorce are meant to achieve clean break and certainty wherever possible. However, final does not necessarily mean immune from challenge, and the law recognises limited routes for setting aside or varying orders, but these are exceptional.

In practical terms, the likelihood of a PSO being revisited after it has taken effect is extremely low. Courts are reluctant to disturb financial orders because doing so undermines certainty and the principle of finality. As the courts have repeatedly emphasised, there must be strong justification to reopen concluded financial proceedings.

That said, the law does provide a way to set aside an order in certain circumstances. These typically include:

• Material non-disclosure or fraud
• A fundamental mistake
• A significant supervening event (often referred to as a “Barder event”)
• Procedural irregularity

Each of these is heavily fact-dependent.

Non-disclosure and fraud

Parties in financial remedy proceedings have a duty of full and frank disclosure; therefore, one option for revisiting a PSO is material non-disclosure. If one party deliberately or negligently fails to disclose the true value of their pension, and that non-disclosure materially affected the outcome, the court may set aside the order.

In a pension context, examples might include:

• Concealing the existence of an additional pension scheme
• Misrepresenting the value of the pension
• Failing to disclose accrued but deferred benefits

That said, not every omission will justify reopening an order. The non-disclosure must be material — that is, it must have had a real impact on the outcome. The court will consider whether, had proper disclosure been made, the order would likely have been substantially different.

Timing also matters. The longer the delay in bringing the application, the more difficult it may be to persuade the court to intervene, particularly if the pension share has already been implemented.

Significant life events (Barder events)

Another possible, albeit rare, route is where a supervening event invalidates the basis upon which the order was made. This principle derives from the 1987 case of Barder v Barder, which established that a financial order may be revisited if:

• A new event has occurred since the order
• The event invalidates the fundamental assumptions underlying the order
• The application is made promptly
• Third-party interests have not been unfairly prejudiced

In practice, successful Barder applications are extremely rare. In a pension context, it would be unusual for a life event to justify setting aside a pension sharing order unless it fundamentally altered the foundation of the settlement.

For example, a sudden and catastrophic collapse in pension value due to market movements would not normally qualify. Market volatility is generally considered foreseeable. Similarly, changes in health or employment status are unlikely to suffice unless truly exceptional. The courts have consistently emphasised that ordinary financial ups and downs are not enough.

Allegations of incorrect pension valuation

Pensions can be complex to value, and many rely on a CETV provided by the scheme administrator. Sometimes parties obtain actuarial reports to assist with more accurate valuations, particularly where defined benefit schemes are involved.

If one party later believes that the pension was wrongly valued, can this justify revisiting the order?

The answer depends on the reason for the alleged error:

• If the valuation was inaccurate because of non-disclosure or misrepresentation, that may support a set-aside application
• If both parties relied in good faith on a valuation that later turns out to have been based on incomplete actuarial assumptions, the court may be less sympathetic

There is an important distinction between a mistake as to the value of an asset and a mere misjudgment or hindsight regret. The court is unlikely to reopen an order simply because one party later considers that a different actuarial method would have produced a better outcome.

If, however, there was a fundamental mistake, for example, the CETV was calculated incorrectly because of an administrative error by the pension provider, there may be scope for challenge, depending on timing and implementation.

Time limits on challenging a PSO

There is no statutory time limit for applying to set aside a financial order. However, delays can be fatal in practice.

Key timing considerations include:

• Whether the pension sharing has taken effect
• Whether the pension credit has already been implemented by the scheme
• Whether third-party rights have arisen

A pension sharing order typically takes effect 28 days after the final order, unless there is an appeal. Once implemented, reversing it becomes procedurally and practically more complex.

If an appeal is intended, strict time limits apply (usually 21 days from the order in most family proceedings). Applications to set aside for fraud or non-disclosure should be made promptly once the issue is discovered.

Incorrect professional advice

Another grey area arises where a party claims they received negligent or incorrect advice from a solicitor, financial adviser, or actuary.

If a party agreed to a pension sharing arrangement based on flawed professional advice, this does not automatically mean the court will set aside the order. The family court is not a mechanism for correcting every instance of poor advice.

Instead, the appropriate remedy may lie in a professional negligence claim against the adviser. For example:

• A financial adviser may have failed to explain the implications of offsetting versus sharing
• An actuary may have provided an erroneous report

Unless the order itself was obtained by fraud, material non-disclosure, or fundamental mistake affecting the court’s decision, the court may decline to reopen it.

That said, each case turns on its own facts. If the court was misled by incorrect expert evidence, and that evidence was central to the decision, there may be scope for revisiting the order.

While Pension Sharing Orders are intended to achieve finality and certainty, they are not entirely immune from challenge. The general likelihood of successfully revisiting such an order after implementation is low, but not impossible.

There are no straightforward or automatic answers in this area. Much depends on timing, the nature of the alleged error, and the evidential foundation for the claim. Anyone contemplating a challenge should seek legal advice, as the consequences, both financial and procedural, can be significant.

Ultimately, the court’s approach reflects a careful balance: protecting fairness and integrity in the disclosure process, while also upholding the vital principle that litigation must, at some point, come to an end.