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

Financial provision on divorce – exclusion of pre-marital property and unequal division of assets

Background

This Hamilton Sheriff Court decision, presided over by Sheriff Graham, dealt with financial provision following the breakdown of a marriage where significant pre-marital assets were involved. The key issues revolved around whether certain property should be excluded from the matrimonial estate and how special circumstances could justify an unequal division of assets.

The parties married in 2014 and separated in 2023. The wife sought an equal division of the assets, including a large inherited estate and pre-marital property held by the husband. The husband argued that his pre-marital assets, including the family home, should be excluded from the pool for division, citing his direct contributions and the special circumstances under section 10(6)(b) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985.

Key legal issues

• whether the pre-marital property should be excluded from the matrimonial estate under section 10(6)(b);
• how to assess the economic disadvantage suffered by the wife during the marriage due to the husband’s dominant contributions; and
• the application of special circumstances to justify an unequal division of assets.

Evidence and reasoning

Evidence showed that while the wife had made significant non-financial contributions (childcare and homemaking), the husband had substantially funded the family home and investments from his pre-marital wealth. The court carefully considered the effect of the wife’s limited income and the husband’s considerable resources, including property inherited from his family.

Sheriff Graham noted that under the principles set out in McConnell v McConnell 1997 Fam LR 109, there was scope for unequal division if it could be shown that excluding the pre-marital property from division would lead to an unjust outcome. The wife’s contributions, though indirect, were deemed significant in supporting the family during the marriage.

Decision

The court ruled that the pre-marital estate should indeed be excluded from the division of assets, but the wife was awarded a capital sum of £200,000 to reflect her indirect contributions and to ensure an unequal division that was fair in light of the husband’s superior financial position. The decision recognised the husband’s right to retain his pre-marital property, but sought to balance the wife’s sacrifice and contributions during the marriage.

Rooney Family Law commentary

At Rooney Family Law, we often encounter cases where pre-marital assets, like inherited property, become a point of contention. This case illustrates how special circumstances (such as long-term economic disadvantage and non-financial contributions) can lead to a fairer, though unequal, division of assets. Even when assets are deemed non-matrimonial, the court must ensure that the final settlement reflects both parties’ contributions and needs.

If you’re facing a similar situation involving pre-marital property or special circumstances, our team of divorce solicitors can offer expert guidance. Whether you need advice on the division of assets or navigating financial claims, we ensure that your case is handled with the utmost care.

Key takeaway

Where pre-marital property is involved, Scottish courts will consider whether excluding those assets would lead to an unjust result. Special circumstances can justify an unequal division of the matrimonial estate, particularly where one party has made indirect yet significant contributions to the family.

Citation: JM v RM [2025] SC HAM 30 (Hamilton Sheriff Court, Sheriff Graham, 30 March 2025)