Proof:- In this action the pursuer sought an order in terms of section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 for payment of £50,000 and an order in terms of section 28(2)(b) of that Act for payment by the defender of £20,000. The parties cohabited as husband and wife from January 1998 and that there are two children from the relationship. The parties separated on 24 May 2006 and the children live with the pursuer and have regular contact with the defender. It was submitted on behalf of the pursuer that she had suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender and the parties' children by giving up full time employment and losing certain opportunities and the defender had gained economic advantage by reason of certain benefits he obtained from the fact of cohabitation and the pursuer's looking after the children. This was the first time that the financial provisions of the 2006 Act had been judicially considered. Here the court considered the issues on the basis of the financial position of parties' as led in evidence. Under section 28(2)(a) the pursuer sought payment of a capital sum of £50,000, with interest and the court here carried out a balancing act based on the evidence at proof and the finacial contributions made by parties. Under section 28(2)(b) the court required to consider the future financial position of parties.
| Court: Court Of Session (Scotland) | |
| Click on this link to access the full judgement. | |


Scotland

![CM v. S.T.S. [2008] CSOH 125](http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/images/stories/jreviews/tn/tn_6023_courtofsession_1241189088.jpg)

![Peter Robertson Marshall v. Mrs Kethleen Aileen Elizabeth Armstrong or Marshall [2007] CSOH](http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/images/stories/jreviews/tn/tn_6032_module50_courtofsession_1241191593.jpg)

