Selkirk v. Chisholm [2010] ScotSC 11 (25 November 2010)

Selkirk v. Chisholm [2010] ScotSC 11 (25 November 2010)

The pursuer failed to establish that the defender derived economic advantage from her contributions or that she suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender as required by section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The increase in the value of the house was due to market forces, and the pursuer's contributions did not justify an order for payment of a capital sum. Accordingly, the defender is entitled to be assoilzied from the craves of the Initial Writ.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 11
Parties
Pursuer: Leanna Mary Selkirk; Defender: Robert Andrew Chisholm
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Family Law (cohabitation) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the Initial Writ; no order for payment of a capital sum.
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Financial Provision on Separation, Economic Advantage and Disadvantage, Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006
Family Law Cohabitation Financial Provision on Separation Economic Advantage and Disadvantage Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leanna Mary Selkirk

Pursuer

Robert Andrew Chisholm

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Family Law (cohabitation) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender derived economic advantage from the pursuer's contributions during cohabitation under section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender
  3. 3 Whether an order for payment of a capital sum is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish that the defender derived economic advantage from her contributions or that she suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender as required by section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The increase in the value of the house was due to market forces, and the pursuer's contributions did not justify an order for payment of a capital sum. Accordingly, the defender is entitled to be assoilzied from the craves of the Initial Writ.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved) from the craves of the Initial Writ; no order for payment of a capital sum.

Orders

  • Sustains the defender's first plea in law.
  • Repels the parties' pleas in law quoad ultra.