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.
Action for divorce:- The pursuer sought an order for transfer, or assignation, from the defender in relation to any right to payment she may have had from the partners of the pursuer’s firm, and any right to payment under the terms of a decree granted previously by the court. Additionally, the pursuer sought interim interdict of the defender from taking steps to enforce the said decree, and from bringing diligence on the basis of the decree. The temporary judge had refused such a motion for interim interdict, and that decision was reclaimed by the pursuer.
In delivering the court’s opinion on the matter of interim interdict, the Inner House noted that as a general principle, the remedies of interdict and interdict ad interim are intended as remedies against an apprehended violation of a party’s rights. The court noted that while it was true that interdict had occasionally been used as a means of maintaining the status quo or regulating interim possession, that function had been largely, if not entirely, superseded by the provisions of then section 6(7) of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 and what is now section 47(2) of the Court of Session Act 1988. As such, the court noted that the remedy could only be used in this way in exceptional circumstances. The court did not find any such exceptional circumstances in this matter, and further doubted whether, even in the past, the remedy could ever have been thought appropriate to prevent enforcement of a valid decree of the court.
Further, the court disagreed with the pursuer’s submission that interim interdict would be competent under section 18(2) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, finding that enforcement of a decree would not constitute a “transaction” for the purposes of that provision. Moreover, the court rejected the pursuer’s submission that the claim for transfer of the right to payment in terms of the decree constituted a specific claim for transfer of “property” under section 8(1)(aa) of the 1985 Act, in holding that a decree was indistinguishable from the ius crediti underlying it, being no more nor less than the equivalent of cash, and thereby failing to be regarded as “property” under the Act. Reclaiming motion refused.
Matrimonial - Proof:- The parties married on 22 July 1977 and had a child during the course of that marriage who is now over the age of 16. The parties separated on 20 August 2002 and have remained apart since that date. Decree of divorce was pronounced following evidence that their marriage had broken down irretrievably. Here the defender sought a claim for financial provision of £3,988,515.00 with interest from 30 August 2002 until payment. During the period of the marriage the pursuer was a fisherman with his own business. The main issue between the parties was the valuation of the pursuer's business interests in determining what financial provision should be awarded to the defender.
Preliminary proof in respect of when the date of cohabitation ceased between parties. S10 (7) Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Whether there had been a period of regular reconciliation. Defender stated that the pursuer's repeated assertions that the marriage had broken down were inconsistent with assertion of continued married life. Relevant date disputed.
Debate:- In this action the question at debate was when did the pursuer and defender stop cohabiting? The parties separated at some point in 2006. They had a child who was born in 1997. The pursuer contended that they separated in June, the defender, April. The date of separation was important to the pursuer's action because if the parties were co-habiting after 4 May 2006 the pursuer's claim on the defender would be restricted by virtue of the operation of Section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 which deals with the financial provisions of parties where the cohabitants cease to cohabit otherwise than by reason of the death of one (or both) of them. Here the court considered the question of at what point did the defender leave the pursuer for good following the leading of evidence from both parties.
Proof:- On 21 April 2001 the parties married and lived together until 11 October 2005 when they agreed to separate. Thereafter, divorce proceedings were raised and the pursuer sought decree of divorce from the defender on the basis that the marriage had broken down irretrievably on account of the defender's behaviour. The defender did not defend the action on the merits of the cause. Here the court considered that the court had jurisdiction. Following proof in which the court heard evidence of the bullying and controlling behaviour towards the pursuer by the defender the court concluded that there was evidence sufficient to justify decree of divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably because of the defender's behaviour and decree of divorce was pronounced. Here the court considered, as at the relevant date, the net value of the matrimonial property and whether any economic advantage was derived by either party from contributions by the other and of any economic disadvantage suffered by either party in the interests of the other.
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision under section 3 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. The appellant was a non-entitled spouse under the Act and the respondent was the tenant of the property which the parties occupied together until May 2010. The initial action was raised after the appellant, who suffered from a bi-polar disorder, returned home from hospital to find the respondent had changed the locks. At a hearing on 17 June 2010, the Sheriff refused to grant two interim orders sought under section 3(4) of the Act; to enforce the appellant’s right to occupy the matrimonial home and to protect his rights by means of an interdict.