CM v. STS [2008] ScotCS CSOH_125 (02 September 2008)

CM v. STS [2008] ScotCS CSOH_125 (02 September 2008)

The court found that the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage by reducing her working hours and pension contributions to care for the children, and that this was not fully offset by any economic advantage gained. The defender benefited from the pursuer's childcare and domestic contributions, but the evidence did not support the full extent of the sums claimed. The court exercised its discretion to make a financial award to the pursuer, reflecting the net economic disadvantage and the costs of future childcare needs.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_125
Parties
Pursuer: C M; Defender: S T S
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law (scotland) Act 2006, S.28(2) Cohabitation Claim / Proof Before the Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Economic Disadvantage, Financial Provision on Separation, Pension Loss, Childcare Costs
Family Law Cohabitation Economic Disadvantage Financial Provision on Separation Pension Loss Childcare Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C M

Pursuer

S T S

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law (scotland) Act 2006, S.28(2) Cohabitation Claim / Proof Before the Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender or the children as a result of cohabitation
  2. 2 Whether the defender derived economic advantage from the cohabitation
  3. 3 Whether and what financial orders should be made under s.28(2) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage by reducing her working hours and pension contributions to care for the children, and that this was not fully offset by any economic advantage gained. The defender benefited from the pursuer's childcare and domestic contributions, but the evidence did not support the full extent of the sums claimed. The court exercised its discretion to make a financial award to the pursuer, reflecting the net economic disadvantage and the costs of future childcare needs.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • The defender is ordered to pay the pursuer £20,000 under section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006.
  • No order is made for the additional £50,000 claimed under section 28(2)(b).