The parties had lived together, but remained unmaried. The relationship broke down and Ms Gow claimed under the 2006 Act. Mr Grant now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Mrs Gow’s application for an award of a capital sum was refused. There had been a number of cases which disclosed varying and contradictory approaches to the construction of section 28. In contrast to the scheme in sections 8 to 10 of the 1985 Act as to the rights of a spouse on divorce, the financial provision which the court was permitted to make by section 28 was in the nature of compensation for an imbalance of economic advantage or disadvantage. The court had to have regard to the precise wording of the section, and it must be satisfied that the requirements set out in the section are satisfied on the evidence. The difficulties would be minimised if it was recognised that the objective of the section was limited in scope. The sherriff’s award was not so justified by the facts in this case.
Judges:
Lord Drummond Young, Lord Justice Clerk (Gill), Lord Mackay of Drumadoon
Citations:
[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 25, 2011 Fam LR 50, 2011 GWD 12-280
Links:
Statutes:
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 28
Cited by:
Cited – Gow 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 . .
Appeal from – Gow 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
Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430867