ISOBEL HARLEY v. GEORGE ROBERTSON [2011] ScotSC 194 (13 December 2011)

ISOBEL HARLEY v. GEORGE ROBERTSON [2011] ScotSC 194 (13 December 2011)

The court held that while the defender derived an economic advantage from the pursuer's contributions, specifically the increase in property value (£2,000), this was entirely offset by the economic disadvantage suffered by the defender in supporting the pursuer and by the economic advantage the pursuer gained from free accommodation. Therefore, no order for payment was justified under s.28. The claim for unjust enrichment also failed as the pursuer did not expend the sums in contemplation of marriage or with a reasonable expectation of indefinite cohabitation.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 194
Parties
Pursuer: Isobel Sheena Harley; Defender: George Robertson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Financial Provision on Relationship Breakdown, Unjust Enrichment, Family Law (scotland) Act 2006 S.28
Family Law Civil Procedure Cohabitation Financial Provision on Relationship Breakdown Unjust Enrichment Family Law (scotland) Act 2006 S.28

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

Parties

Isobel Sheena Harley

Pursuer

George Robertson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to a capital sum under s.28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 following cohabitation
  2. 2 Whether the defender has been unjustly enriched by the pursuer's expenditure on property improvements

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the defender derived an economic advantage from the pursuer's contributions, specifically the increase in property value (£2,000), this was entirely offset by the economic disadvantage suffered by the defender in supporting the pursuer and by the economic advantage the pursuer gained from free accommodation. Therefore, no order for payment was justified under s.28. The claim for unjust enrichment also failed as the pursuer did not expend the sums in contemplation of marriage or with a reasonable expectation of indefinite cohabitation.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Sustains the pleas-in-law for the defender
  • Repels the pleas-in-law for the pursuer