E.M. v. A.I. [2012] ScotSC 24 (20 February 2012)

E.M. v. A.I. [2012] ScotSC 24 (20 February 2012)

The parties were cohabitants within the meaning of the Act. The defender derived economic advantage from the pursuer's financial and non-financial contributions, particularly in enabling him to acquire and retain a house that increased in value and to develop his business. The pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the child, including reduced earnings and increased child care responsibilities. An award of £10,000 as a capital sum and £5,000 towards the economic burden of child care was appropriate to correct the economic imbalance, taking into account the relevant statutory factors and the evidence.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 24
Parties
Pursuer: EM; Defender: AI
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (family Law, Cohabitation) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Orders granted for payment of capital sum and contribution to child care costs; hearing on expenses appointed.
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Economic Advantage/disadvantage, Capital Sum on Separation, Economic Burden of Child Care, Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006
Family Law Cohabitation Economic Advantage/disadvantage Capital Sum on Separation Economic Burden of Child Care 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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EM

Pursuer

AI

Defender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties were cohabitants within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the defender derived economic advantage from contributions made by the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the defender or the child

Ratio Decidendi

The parties were cohabitants within the meaning of the Act. The defender derived economic advantage from the pursuer's financial and non-financial contributions, particularly in enabling him to acquire and retain a house that increased in value and to develop his business. The pursuer suffered economic disadvantage in the interests of the child, including reduced earnings and increased child care responsibilities. An award of £10,000 as a capital sum and £5,000 towards the economic burden of child care was appropriate to correct the economic imbalance, taking into account the relevant statutory factors and the evidence.

Court Disposition

Orders granted for payment of capital sum and contribution to child care costs; hearing on expenses appointed.

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer a capital sum of £10,000 in terms of section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, payable on 1 July 2012 with interest at 8% per annum from due date until payment.
  • Defender to pay pursuer £5,000 in respect of the economic burden of caring for the child after cohabitation, in five annual instalments of £1,000, first instalment payable immediately, with interest at 8% per annum on each instalment from due date until payment, in terms of section 28(2)(b) of the Family Law...