Limits to party's obligations on pension sharing, sheriff holds

A cautionary note about pension sharing and SIPPs. In G v G [2017] SC ABE 37 a pension sharing order had been granted and the parties to the action took steps to implement the order.

Pension trustees advised that the SIPP was illiquid and there were insufficient funds to facilitate the £120,000 pension credit.

The pursuer lodged a minute seeking incidental orders by way of the granting of standard securities over the defender’s property. The defender insisted he had done all he could – the implementation was beyond his control, he had completed the documentation to allow the order to be implemented, and could do no more. He had not acted in bad faith.

The sheriff held that it was the pension trustees who could not ensure the implementation of the order. The defender could not be obliged to pay funds into his pension fund to expedite the order.

Further, it would be incompetent to make an order for the granting of a heritable security over his properties for an obligation which did not exist.