ONE of the most important principles of the law governing divorce in Scotland is that matrimonial property should be shared fairly between the parties.

However, a new study published by the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships indicates that this fair division may not always be happening. There appears to be an imbalance at the heart of how property and assets are being divided when men and women divorce - an imbalance which may leave some women worse off.

This imbalance can result from the best of intentions. One of the most striking findings of the research is that both parties in a divorce generally want to make a clean break and reach a one-off financial settlement that means they can get on with their lives. On the whole, as they try to reach that settlement, the woman is focused on keeping the matrimonial home, often to provide continuity for children, while the man is focused on keeping his pension. In many cases - perhaps because both parties are keen to make a deal - this is how the assets end up being divided.

However, there is a danger for women in such deals, even if both parties are happy at the outset. In Scots Law, the pensions of both partners are considered matrimonial property and, on divorce, both parties are entitled to a fair share of the income from those pensions. This is particularly important in the case of wives who may have taken a career break, or worked part-time, and therefore may not have been able to build up a pension of their own. The danger for a woman choosing to surrender her pension entitlement in these circumstances is she may end up financially worse off after the divorce and more vulnerable to poverty later in life.

This appears to be what is happening in some cases. In interviews conducted for the research, one-quarter of women said they were worse off financially after divorce while all but one of the men who were interviewed said they were better off or the same. It does not automatically follow the women feel worse off because of a decision to forego a share of their husband's pension; nevertheless there is reason to be concerned about the long-term consequences of that decision.

It is clear that in the sometimes emotionally charged days leading to divorce, many women appear to be willing to sacrifice a share of their husband's pension to ensure a good deal on the matrimonial home. Securing a valuation of a pension can also be a time-consuming and difficult process and some women may simply consider it more hassle than it's worth.

However, women who choose to forego their pension entitlements in this way may be forgetting the long-term consequences. Solicitors who draw up written agreements have a duty to remind clients of their rights to a share of a former partner's pension and there is no evidence they are failing in this duty. Rather, the evidence appears to suggest that it is some women, in their understandable haste to secure the family home and move on, who are making the decision to waive their rights. They are perfectly entitled to do so but if the research by the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships has a take-home message for women, it is this: they should balance the short-term benefit of making a settlement that allows them to move on with the long-term financial consequences that could leave them considerably worse off.