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, the pursuer receives more than 50 per cent of the matrimonial property. I accept the submissions by counsel for the pursuer in preference to those of counsel for the defender on this matter. I find that on the question of economic disadvantage the pursuer is left economically disadvantaged to a material extent. It is said by counsel for the defender that any economic disadvantage which the pursuer may have is balanced by the advantage she has in having been married to so successful a businessman. I do not accept counsel’s approach on this matter. As already mentioned, it is clear that the defender was a successful businessman throughout the parties married life together. While he was carving out a successful career, and indeed supporting the pursuer and their daughter well, the pursuer was looking after the house and their daughter over and above the parties’ respective care of each other. The pursuer worked before the marriage but did not do so during the marriage. That she did not do so was not, I accept, due to any absolute insistence on the part of the defender that she should not work, but I interpret the evidence as indicating that he was content for her not to work. The defender is now well launched on a business career where he can command a high salary, currently apparently some andpound;58,000 after tax per annum. The pursuer, on the other hand, requires to retrain in order to get back, as she put it, on the employment ladder. This she requires to do at the age of 45 years, which may well be problematical, at least so far as ending up with a well paid job is concerned. The difference between her earning potential now and what she would probably have been earning but for her marriage to the defender cannot be calculated with any accuracy but I think it reasonable to conclude that the pursuer has suffered a material economic disadvantage in this connection.’
Judges:
Lord Milligan
Citations:
1994 SLT 351
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Adams 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 . .
Cited – CM v STS SCS 2-Sep-2008
cm_stsSCS2008
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.277304
