This case addressed the financial settlement following the divorce of AB and CB, highlighting the court’s discretion under Section 9 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. It focused on the division of matrimonial property, including the matrimonial home, pensions, and AB’s retained business profits.
Background
AB and CB were married in 2002 and separated in February 2019, establishing the relevant date under Section 10(3) of the Act. They had three children, one of whom remained under 16 at the time of proof and lived with CB, who was the primary caregiver.
The matrimonial property included the matrimonial home, pensions, savings, and AB’s family demolition business. While the retained profits in the business were not directly part of the matrimonial property, CB argued they should be considered under Section 9(1)(b) due to her indirect contributions to AB’s financial success during the marriage.
Key Issues
- Economic Advantage and Retained Profits:
Under Section 9(1)(b), the court considered whether CB’s contributions to the marriage, including domestic and caregiving responsibilities, enabled AB’s business growth. AB contended that the retained profits should not factor into the division as they were reinvested into the business. - Unequal Division and Special Circumstances:
CB sought an unequal division of the net matrimonial property under Section 10(6), citing her role as primary caregiver and AB’s greater financial prospects due to his business interests. - Periodical Allowance:
CB requested a periodical allowance under Section 9(1)(d) to support her financial adjustment, given her lower earning capacity compared to AB’s substantial income from the business.
Court’s Findings
The court ruled in CB’s favour, recognising her contributions to the marriage and the significant economic disparity between the parties:
- CB was awarded 57% of the net matrimonial property, amounting to £465,914.67.
- AB retained the matrimonial home, valued at £625,000, but was required to pay CB a capital sum of £323,229.76 to reflect her share.
- CB was granted a periodical allowance of £1,000 per month for 18 months, aiding her financial adjustment to post-divorce life.
- An additional £8,000 was awarded to CB for replacing a boiler and oil tank disconnected by AB during the separation.
The court found that CB’s domestic contributions and caregiving justified an unequal division, particularly given AB’s greater economic advantage.
Significance for Family Law
This judgment underscores the importance of Section 9(1)(b) in addressing economic advantage and disadvantage within a marriage. It also highlights the court’s willingness to depart from equal sharing when special circumstances justify it. The decision reinforces the importance of presenting detailed evidence to support claims for unequal division and financial support.
For guidance on complex financial settlements, contact Rooney Family Law for expert advice.