ANGELA LINDSAY v. GEORGE MURPHY [2010] ScotSC 116 (30 June 2010)

ANGELA LINDSAY v. GEORGE MURPHY [2010] ScotSC 116 (30 June 2010)

The pursuer is contractually barred from seeking division and sale of the property by the minute of agreement signed in November 2008, which remains in force and has not been frustrated. The defender has derived economic advantage from the pursuer's contributions to the extent of £39,750, and the pursuer has suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender and the children. The economic burden of caring for the children after cohabitation is reasonably assessed at £8,230. The pursuer is entitled to payment of these sums by the defender.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 116
Parties
Pursuer: Angela Lindsay; Defender: George Murphy
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (family Law) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's crave for division and sale refused; defender's counterclaim dismissed; pursuer awarded capital sums for economic advantage and child care burden.
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Financial Provision on Separation, Division and Sale of Property, Economic Advantage and Disadvantage, Child Care Costs
Family Law Cohabitation Financial Provision on Separation Division and Sale of Property Economic Advantage and Disadvantage Child Care 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Lindsay

Pursuer

George Murphy

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (family Law) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to division and sale of the jointly owned property despite a prior contractual agreement regulating sale.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to a capital sum under section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 for economic advantage derived by the defender from her contributions.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer is entitled to a capital sum under section 28(2)(b) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 for the economic burden of caring for the children after cohabitation ended.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer is contractually barred from seeking division and sale of the property by the minute of agreement signed in November 2008, which remains in force and has not been frustrated. The defender has derived economic advantage from the pursuer's contributions to the extent of £39,750, and the pursuer has suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender and the children. The economic burden of caring for the children after cohabitation is reasonably assessed at £8,230. The pursuer is entitled to payment of these sums by the defender.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's crave for division and sale refused; defender's counterclaim dismissed; pursuer awarded capital sums for economic advantage and child care burden.

Orders

  • Pursuer's second and third pleas in law sustained to the extent of financial claims.
  • Defender's first plea in law sustained.