A former British Airways pilot declared a "small triumph for man" today as judges ruled his £900,000 pension should not be treated as an ordinary asset in a divorce settlement.

A panel of judges at the Court of Appeal awarded Philip Martin-Dye a further £650,000 on top of the £3 million he has already received in his divorce settlement.

Mr Martin-Dye, who rented a room in his wife’s home before marrying her, appealed over whether his pension should be treated as an asset, similar to a property, when dividing the marital wealth. Unlike a property or portfolio of shares, a pension cannot be sold for cash.

In the original settlement, the district court included the pension as a capital asset, splitting it between Mr and Mrs Martin-Dye based on its total estimated value. But Lord Justice Thorpe found in Mr Martin-Dye’s favour, saying the lower court was wrong to treat the pension like a property.

He ruled that it should be split according to what the pension is worth in future annual income. Lord Philips, the Lord Chief Justice, said the original settlement should be amended by £650,000 in Mr Martin-Dye’s favour to reflect his successful appeal.

Henry Brookman, Mr Martin-Dye’s solicitor, said the case set a precedent that the courts can no longer equate pension values with other capital assets.

David Salter, head of family law at Addleshaw Goddard, said: "This ruling is significant because it's the first time the Court of Appeal has handled a case where a pension was the central issue.

"But whilst acknowledging that pensions are an important and complicated issue, the Court of Appeal has missed an opportunity to provide detailed guidance on how such cases should be treated in the future. Today's ruling says pensions should be treated separately to other assets but does not provide guidance on how they should be valued in these kinds of disputes and how expert evidence should be introduced to deal with it."

For some divorcing couples, especially those who split later in life, a pension is the single most important financial issue and Mr Salter predicted they would continue to gain prominence in divorce disputes.

Mr Martin-Dye, 55, said: "I do not see this as a victory because this is the result I should have got at the outset of the proceedings. But in the light of what has been happening in the divorce courts recently, I see it as a small triumph for man."

In what lawyers are calling the most significant divorce rulings in 20 years the House of Lords yesterday found in favour of two ex-wives of wealthy husbands awarding them substantial financial settlements.

Mrs Martin-Dye, 54, claims today’s ruling has "pauperised" her and she will have to sell the former marital home Green Lane Farm, in Surrey.

"From being a strong independent woman with multi-million pound assets, I am now reduced to the level of a maintained ex-wife," she said.

The farm estate, which includes two cottages and 41 acres of land, belonged to Mrs Martin-Dye at the time when Mr Martin-Dye moved in, at first as a lodger, in 1987. They were married the same year.

The Court of Appeal refused Mrs Martin-Dye permission to appeal to the House of Lords, but she can still petition the law lords directly.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers