Johnston v. Adams [2004] ScotSC 42 (18 June 2004)

Johnston v. Adams [2004] ScotSC 42 (18 June 2004)

The defender is not entitled to a capital sum as there was no evidence of economic disadvantage to her or economic advantage to the pursuer, and no special circumstances justifying an unequal division. The division of matrimonial property was already in the defender's favour, and unpaid work on the farm and primary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 42
Parties
Pursuer: Donald Brown Johnston; Defender: Lorraine Pearl Adams or Johnston
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Financial Provision on Divorce / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Defender's claim for a capital sum refused; Pursuer's plea sustained; Defender's plea repelled; Expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Property, Economic Advantage/disadvantage, Capital Sum on Divorce, Special Circumstances in Property Division
Family Law Division of Matrimonial Property Economic Advantage/disadvantage Capital Sum on Divorce Special Circumstances in Property Division

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Brown Johnston

Pursuer

Lorraine Pearl Adams or Johnston

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Financial Provision on Divorce / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender is entitled to a capital sum from the pursuer on divorce under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether there was economic disadvantage to the defender or economic advantage to the pursuer justifying a capital sum
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to justify unequal division of matrimonial property

Ratio Decidendi

The defender is not entitled to a capital sum as there was no evidence of economic disadvantage to her or economic advantage to the pursuer, and no special circumstances justifying an unequal division. The division of matrimonial property was already in the defender's favour, and unpaid work on the farm and primary responsibility for child-rearing did not merit a capital payment.

Court Disposition

Defender's claim for a capital sum refused; Pursuer's plea sustained; Defender's plea repelled; Expenses reserved.

Orders

  • No capital sum awarded to defender
  • Pursuer's 2nd plea-in-law sustained