Gow v Grant [2011] ScotCS CSIH_25 (22 March 2011)

Gow v Grant [2011] ScotCS CSIH_25 (22 March 2011)

The sheriff erred in finding that the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender; the sale of her house and use of proceeds were primarily for her own benefit or joint expenses, not specifically for the defender's benefit, and any minor imbalance was offset by the defender's greater contributions. Therefore, no award under section 28 was justified.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_25
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Jessamine Watson Gow; Defender and Appellant: Angus Grant
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court (financial Provision Following Cohabitation) / Inner House, Court of Session (second Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; pursuer's application for a capital sum refused.
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Financial Provision, Economic Advantage and Disadvantage, Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006
Family Law Cohabitation Financial Provision 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jessamine Watson Gow

Pursuer and Respondent

Angus Grant

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court (financial Provision Following Cohabitation) / Inner House, Court of Session (second Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender under section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in awarding a capital sum to the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in finding that the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender; the sale of her house and use of proceeds were primarily for her own benefit or joint expenses, not specifically for the defender's benefit, and any minor imbalance was offset by the defender's greater contributions. Therefore, no award under section 28 was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutor recalled; pursuer's application for a capital sum refused.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Sheriff's interlocutor recalled