JM v RM [2025] SC HAM 30 (Sheriff Appeal Court)

Cohabitation financial claim upheld after initial dismissal — appeal allowed on grounds of economic disadvantage

Background

This case arose from a cohabitation financial claim where the pursuer (JM) sought a capital sum after the cessation of cohabitation with the defender (RM). The pursuer argued that during their relationship, he had made significant financial contributions, particularly towards the household and maintenance of a family home. The initial claim was dismissed in the Sheriff Court on grounds of time bar and insufficient proof of economic disadvantage.

The pursuer appealed the decision to the Sheriff Appeal Court, arguing that economic disadvantage from the cohabitation period should have been acknowledged under section 28 of the *Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006* and that evidence of his contributions to household costs and domestic responsibilities had been unfairly disregarded.

Key legal issues

• whether the pursuer’s claim was time-barred under section 28(8) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006;
• whether the economic disadvantage sustained by the pursuer through non-financial contributions was sufficiently demonstrated; and
• the legal standard of proof in cohabitation claims under the 2006 Act.

Evidence and reasoning

The appeal focused on whether the time limit for lodging claims had been correctly applied. The defender (RM) contended that the claim had not been raised within one year of cessation of the cohabitation, as required under section 28 of the 2006 Act. However, the pursuer argued that this time frame should be extended given the long-term nature of their cohabitation (six years) and the continuing joint contributions to property and household expenses.

Evidence showed that during the cohabitation, the pursuer took on a greater share of the childcare and domestic responsibilities. He also made substantial payments towards the mortgage and upkeep of the shared property, which he argued caused a financial disadvantage for him when the relationship ended. The Sheriff Appeal Court noted that non-financial contributions, such as domestic work and childcare, must also be considered under section 9(1)(b) of the Act.

Decision

The Sheriff Appeal Court overturned the original decision, ruling that the pursuer had sustained economic disadvantage during the cohabitation period that was not properly considered by the Sheriff. The time-bar claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, and the case was remitted for full proof. The Court stressed that, under the *Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006*, the standard for claiming economic disadvantage includes both financial and non-financial contributions, and courts must not limit the scope of evidence to monetary matters alone.

Rooney Family Law commentary

This appeal highlights the importance of recognising non-financial contributions in cohabitation claims. The case reminds us that domestic responsibilities and childcare duties are as valuable as financial contributions when dividing property and assets. For anyone in a cohabitation dispute, it’s critical to understand that economic disadvantage doesn’t solely refer to money — the court will assess the overall impact of shared duties, and the parties’ respective roles during cohabitation.

If you’re involved in a cohabitation dispute, our specialist cohabitation lawyers in Scotland can provide clarity on your rights and what evidence is necessary to support your case. Whether your dispute involves shared property or child-related responsibilities, we’ll ensure your contributions are properly recognised.

Key takeaway

The case reinforces that cohabitation claims are not limited to financial contributions — non-financial roles (such as childcare and household work) are vital in calculating economic disadvantage. Legal protections under the *Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006* require a holistic approach to cohabitation disputes, ensuring fairness in property and financial claims.

Citation: JM v RM [2025] SC HAM 30 (Sheriff Appeal Court, 15 February 2025)