OB AGAINST A B AND ANOTHER [2019] ScotCS CSOH_102 (11 December 2019)

OB AGAINST A B AND ANOTHER [2019] ScotCS CSOH_102 (11 December 2019)

The £1 million in the pursuer's Citibank account at the relevant date is matrimonial property, having been acquired during the marriage by transfer from the first defender. The transfer was a gift, not a sham, and the first defender's assertions regarding company ownership and asset transfers are not credible. There is insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or to treat assets held by the second defenders as the first defender's property. The pursuer is entitled to an equal share of the net matrimonial property, subject to deduction of relevant debts.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_102
Parties
Pursuer: OB; First Defender: A B; Second Defender: S I C
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; capital payment awarded to pursuer; declarator not granted regarding second defenders.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision on Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Corporate Veil, Credibility and Reliability
Family Law Divorce Financial Provision on Divorce Matrimonial Property Corporate Veil Credibility and Reliability

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OB

Pursuer

A B

First Defender

S I C

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether £1 million in pursuer's Citibank account is matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether assets held by companies/trusts are subject to division
  3. 3 Whether corporate veil should be pierced

Ratio Decidendi

The £1 million in the pursuer's Citibank account at the relevant date is matrimonial property, having been acquired during the marriage by transfer from the first defender. The transfer was a gift, not a sham, and the first defender's assertions regarding company ownership and asset transfers are not credible. There is insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or to treat assets held by the second defenders as the first defender's property. The pursuer is entitled to an equal share of the net matrimonial property, subject to deduction of relevant debts.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; capital payment awarded to pursuer; declarator not granted regarding second defenders.

Orders

  • Decree of divorce pronounced in terms of first conclusion.
  • First defender ordered to pay pursuer a capital sum (amount not specified in judgment extract).