CM v STS: SCS 2 Sep 2008


The pursuer sought payment of substantial sums, having been disadvantaged by ceasing work to care for the parties’ children. She also asserted that the defender had been advantaged by her taking the care of the children. The parties were not married but had lived together, and a sum could now be claimed on cessation under the 1996 Act. The defender had fallen into arrears with his payments to the Child Support Agency.
Held: The court should exclude consideration of payments which might be recoverable by the Child Support Agency. The 2006 Act contained a danger that courts might make an order without regard to the resources available to a party to meet it.
Whilst each case is to be judged on its own merits, a contribution by one partner or spouse who looks after a house and or children can be balanced by the financial contributions made by the other spouse or partner and vice versa. Lord Matthews said: ‘The fact that the 1985 Act and the 2006 Act approach the problem from different directions does not, I think, affect the matter in principle. Either factors balance out or they do not. The effect of the balancing exercise will of course lead to difference consequences. Under the 1985 Act the principle of equal division may or may not be affected. Under the 2006 Act the payment of a capital sum may or may not be affected.’

Lord Matthews
[2008] ScotCS CSOH – 125, 2008 GWD 31-473, 2008 SLT 871
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 28(2)(a), Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
CitedAli v Andrew SCS 29-Jan-2003
. .
CitedWelsh v Welsh 1994
. .
CitedAdams v Adams (No 1) 1997
Lord Gill said: ‘The pursuer next relies on s 9(1)(b) (as read with s 9(2) and s 11(2).
She argues that the defender has enjoyed an economic advantage in that he has been able to further his career whereas she has prejudiced hers by bringing . .
CitedLoudon v Loudon SCS 1994
Lord Milligan said: ‘I have considered carefully counsel’s submission on the question of the appropriate allocation of the matrimonial property. I am left in no doubt whatsoever that this should be an allocation in which, in the whole circumstances, . .

Cited by:
CitedGow v Grant SC 24-May-2012
The parties had lived together as an unmarried couple, but separated. Mrs Gow applied under the 2006 Act for provision. Mr Grant’s appeal succeeded at the Inner House, and Mrs Gow now herself appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act did . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Family, Child Support

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.273111