Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[1] In this divorce action I heard a preliminary proof restricted to the issue of the “the relevant date” in terms of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, s. 10(3). Section 10(3) provides:
“In this section “the relevant date” means whichever is the earlier of –
“For the purposes of this Act, the parties to a marriage shall be held to cohabit with one another only when they are in fact living together as man and wife.”
[2] The proof had been set down for two days commencing on 6 May 2014. Evidence was concluded on the second day and I heard closing submissions before the luncheon adjournment on 8 May 2014. I gave an ex tempore judgement later that afternoon. I was advised on 21 May 2014 that a reclaiming motion had been marked.
[3] The pursuer and the defender were married at Perth on 17 December 1966. The pursuer was then aged 19 and the defender was aged 22. They have one child, a son, Laith Faris Samarai, who was aged 47 at the proof. For many years the parties have lived in their current house in Bridge of Don. The parties and their son have all worked in the family business for many years.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.