Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. Fairness still the test where both cohabitees wealthy

Fairness still the test where both cohabitees wealthy

20th February 2018 | family-child law

In M v S [2017] CSOH 151 (12 December 2017) the pursuer sought, and was awarded, an order for a capital sum payment of £912,000 by the defender following cessation of cohabitation.

The pursuer pitched the claim under two clear heads in terms of s 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. The first was an increase in the net value of a farmhouse less the capital contributions made by the defender, which had been the parties’ home for the majority of the relationship. The second derived from her loss of income resulting from a reduction in working hours in the interests of the parties’ children.

The pursuer, a solicitor, did not seek to recover any loss arising out of not becoming an equity partner, limiting her claim to partnerships held during the course of the relationship and between full and part time work. The defender contended that no award was due.

Lord Ericht noted that even after the award, the defender’s increase in the value of his assets over the course of the cohabitation would still dwarf the pursuer’s, and emphasised that in terms of the test set out in Gow v Grant 2013 SC (UKSC) 1, the exercise was to achieve fairness between the parties.

 

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited