Thomson v. Thomson and Another [1907] ScotLR 95 (22 November 1907)

Thomson v. Thomson and Another [1907] ScotLR 95 (22 November 1907)

The husband's conduct did not amount to lenocinium as he was not accessory to or responsible for the adultery; his actions were limited to suspicion and watchfulness, which are not sufficient to bar his claim for divorce. The facts fell short of active acquiescence or positive concurrence required for lenocinium.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 95
Parties
Pursuer (husband): David Jugurtha Thomson; Defender (wife): Mrs Matilda Lawson Stewart or Thomson; Co Defender: Arthur Bright
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Note (appeal) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; plea of lenocinium rejected; defender (wife) allowed expenses of reclaiming note.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Adultery, Lenocinium (connivance), Bar to Divorce, Expenses in Consistorial Actions
Family Law Divorce Adultery Lenocinium (connivance) Bar to Divorce Expenses in Consistorial Actions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Jugurtha Thomson

Pursuer (husband)

Mrs Matilda Lawson Stewart or Thomson

Defender (wife)

Arthur Bright

Co Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Note (appeal) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the husband's conduct amounted to lenocinium (connivance) so as to bar his action for divorce on the ground of adultery
  2. 2 Whether the wife was entitled to expenses of an unsuccessful reclaiming note

Ratio Decidendi

The husband's conduct did not amount to lenocinium as he was not accessory to or responsible for the adultery; his actions were limited to suspicion and watchfulness, which are not sufficient to bar his claim for divorce. The facts fell short of active acquiescence or positive concurrence required for lenocinium.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; plea of lenocinium rejected; defender (wife) allowed expenses of reclaiming note.

Orders

  • Decree of divorce in favour of pursuer (husband)
  • Plea of lenocinium repelled