AK v VA [2025] SC ABE 52 (Aberdeen Sheriff Court)
Unequal division justified where Russian properties traced to gifted funds — application of special-circumstances rule
Background
This Aberdeen Sheriff Court decision, delivered by Sheriff Philip Mann, examined financial provision on divorce involving property in both Scotland and Russia.
The parties married at Gretna in 2017 and separated in February 2019. There was one child of the marriage. The action concerned division of assets and competing claims under sections 8–11 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985.
The husband owned two Russian properties — a residential apartment and a commercial unit — together with UK bank/pension assets. The wife owned the Aberdeen flat which the parties used as their home. Each argued that special circumstances justified departing from equal sharing.
Key legal issues
The court considered:
- whether the Russian properties were matrimonial property at the relevant date;
- whether the source of funds (family gifts/pre-marital assets) engaged section 10(6)(b) special circumstances;
- how to balance economic advantages/disadvantages arising from works to the Aberdeen flat; and
- fair child aliment and any capital contribution for the economic burden under section 9(1)(c).
Findings
Evidence showed the husband’s mother paid the full price of the Russian residential flat direct to the developer before marriage as a gift. Although acquired “for use as a family home” during visits, the parties never lived there. The sheriff held that while the flat technically fell within the statutory definition, its gifted source and non-use justified leaving its value out of account when sharing the net matrimonial property.
The commercial premises, later bought by the husband’s father using the husband’s pre-marital funds, were also matrimonial property. A Russian court had ordered transfer of half to the wife. The sheriff recognised that outcome but granted the husband a reimbursement credit to reflect the value of the share transferred.
Economic advantage and disadvantage
The husband spent about £147,000 refurbishing the wife’s Aberdeen flat, enhancing value by roughly £60,000. The court treated that as an economic disadvantage to him and awarded a £60,000 credit. Conversely, because he lived rent-free in that flat for over four years pre-marriage, he had obtained an economic advantage valued at £15,000, repayable to the wife.
As the primary carer, the wife was entitled to ongoing support. The husband was ordered to pay £150 per month in aliment and to make a £60,000 capital contribution toward the long-term economic burden of caring for the child.
Decision
The sheriff excluded the Russian residential flat from the divisible “pot”, reflected the commercial unit via reimbursement credit, and balanced the remaining items to achieve fairness. Importantly, the court stressed that identifying an asset as matrimonial property is only the first step; fair sharing may still justify unequal division where section 10(6) special circumstances (such as gifted or pre-marital sources) apply. Given the wife’s resources and child-care responsibilities, no further payment was due from her. Decree of divorce was granted with an incidental order for continuing aliment.
Key takeaway
Where foreign property has been funded from gifted family wealth or other non-marital sources, Scottish courts can adjust the financial outcome using section 10(6)(b), even if the asset counts as matrimonial property in a technical sense. The judgment also shows the court’s holistic approach to foreign assets, economic-advantage claims and child-care costs to reach a fair overall result.
Citation: AK v VA [2025] SC ABE 52 (Sheriff Philip Mann, 21 August 2025)