FELICITY FULWOOD v. ANDREW O'HALLORAN K/A SAPPER O'HALLORAN

[1] This action called for debate on the defender's first plea-in-law. The plea as tabled challenged the relevancy et separatim specification of the pursuer's averments in the usual general terms and sought dismissal of the action. It was supported by his rule 22 note number 12 of process.

[3] The Rule 22 Note contained six paragraphs. The case proceeded to debate on all of them.

[5] He then referred to the terms of section 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act"). The section gave a former cohabitant the right to apply to an appropriate court for an order for financial provision when the cohabitants ceased to cohabit otherwise than by reason of death. He pointed out that the focus of attention in the section was on the twin concepts of economic advantage and economic disadvantage, and in particular that subsection (3) set out a very detailed statement of information that needed to be made in order to substantiate a case brought under the section.

[6] At this very early point in the submissions the solicitor for the pursuer interjected to say that he had been under the misapprehension in advance of the diet that the defender was seeking dismissal of the cause. Now that he had been made aware that was not so he asked for an opportunity to discuss the proposed attacks privately with the solicitor for the defender if he were prepared to do that, which he was. I accordingly adjourned briefly to allow the parties to have that discussion. In the event, whatever it contained, it did not secure a resolution and the debate proceeded.

[7] On resuming his submissions, the solicitor for the defender referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gow v Grant [2012] UKSC 29 ; 2013 UKSC1, and founded in particular on the whole terms of paragraph [33] of the speech of Lord Hope DPSC. It is in the following terms: