Proof:- On 21 April 2001 the parties married and lived together until 11 October 2005 when they agreed to separate. Thereafter, divorce proceedings were raised and the pursuer sought decree of divorce from the defender on the basis that the marriage had broken down irretrievably on account of the defender's behaviour. The defender did not defend the action on the merits of the cause. Here the court considered that the court had jurisdiction. Following proof in which the court heard evidence of t ...
|
Proof:- In this action the pursuer sought an order in terms of section 28(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 for payment of £50,000 and an order in terms of section 28(2)(b) of that Act for payment by the defender of £20,000. The parties cohabited as husband and wife from January 1998 and that there are two children from the relationship. The parties separated on 24 May 2006 and the children live with the pursuer and have regular contact with the defender. It was submitted on ...
|
This was an appeal under section 21 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 against a decision of an Additional Support Needs Tribunal dated 16 January 2008 confirming a decision of the respondents dated 8 October 2007 that WA did not require a Co-ordinated Support Plan. On 8 October, the respondents wrote to the appellant and stated:- "The Educational Authority considered whether a Co-ordinated Support Plan was required.It was agreed at this meeting that WA did ha ...
|
The Appellant brought an appeal under Section 51(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) against a decision of the Children’s Hearing making a supervision requirement in respect of the Appellant’s son, in terms of which the Appellant was to have no contact with his son. Shortly before the Hearing, an interim contact order had been made in the Appellant’s favour. That order was made in a Sheriff Court action brought by ...
|
This appeal concerns the right to marry protected by art.12 of the ECHR, one of the articles to which domestic effect is given by the Human Rights Act 1998. More specifically, the appeal concerns the control of that right by the Secretary of State under and pursuant to s.19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The agreed issue is whether the scheme established by and under s.19 involves a disproportionate interference with (and therefore a breach of) the art.12 r ...
|
Debate:- In this action the question at debate was when did the pursuer and defender stop cohabiting? The parties separated at some point in 2006. They had a child who was born in 1997. The pursuer contended that they separated in June, the defender, April. The date of separation was important to the pursuer's action because if the parties were co-habiting after 4 May 2006 the pursuer's claim on the defender would be restricted by virtue of the operation of Section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland ...
|
The Pursuer and the Defender have a child, GM. When they separated, The Defender obtained full parental responsibilities and rights in relation to GM. The Defender decided that she would move to Spain to live permanently, taking GM with her. The Pursuer raised proceedings for inter alia interdict. The Defender craved a specific issue order under Section 11 (2) (e) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1985 allowing her to move GM from the UK to live permanently in Spain. She was ordained to l ...
|
Matrimonial:- On 23 June 1990 the parties married. At that time, the pursuer was aged 49 and had been married before. She was a school biology and chemistry teacher by profession until she retired in 2000. The defender was 46 and had never married and had been living in Aberdeen as a pharmacist, operating two shops. He was comfortably well off as a bachelor. In this action the pursuer sought capital sum of amounting to one half of the matrimonial property notwithstanding the capital which the de ...
|
Preliminary proof in respect of when the date of cohabitation ceased between parties. S10 (7) Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Whether there had been a period of regular reconciliation. Defender stated that the pursuer's repeated assertions that the marriage had broken down were inconsistent with assertion of continued married life. Relevant date disputed.
|
The question in this case is whether it is consistent with Convention rights as defined in s.1(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a couple to be excluded from consideration as adoptive parents of a child on the ground only that they are not married. The woman is the natural mother of the child. The man is not the father but he and the woman have been living together for some years and treat the child as a member of the family. The legal obstacle to their adoption application is art. 14 of t ...
|
| 1 2 3 |