Adams v Adams, 1997 SLT 144
Citation: Adams v Adams, 1997 SLT 144
Link to case on WorldLII (reference).
Rule of thumb: When is there a 50/50 split on assets between a man & woman on divorce? If they have both had their own independent professional careers, with the woman not being in the house, then this will be a standard 50/50 split on the assets accrued.
Judgment:
The Court in this case affirmed the ‘modern day woman’ principle – the Court held that where a woman has had a professional career as well as kids, and returned to work soon after having kids, then this will likely be a 50/50 split of matrimonial assets in the case. Where the woman has spent many years at home looking at the children this is where the split will begin to become altered. The facts of this case were that the husband and wife had both been professionals and they had children. The wife had continued to work as a professional and had a pension scheme. The wife had stayed at home with the children for prolonged periods, and during this time the husband had worked to ensure a good standard of living for the family. The wife argued that she had sacrificed her career, and that the husband had advanced his, and that she should therefore have a bigger share of the pot accumulated, based on the fact that the husband would continue to benefit from his advanced career after the divorce. The husband argued that the wife was still actively in professional employment now with every chance to advance her career, and she was able to stay at home and enjoy bring the children up, which he had worked additionally to finance. The Court held that this was a classic example where the husband and wife had both made 50/50 contributions to the family. The Court held that this was a classic case where there was to be a 50/50 split on all the assets, ‘Mrs Adams argues that the defender has enjoyed an economic advantage in that he has been able to further his career whereas she has prejudiced hers by bringing up the children. I accept that the pursuer has suffered an economic disadvantage in this respect. On the other hand in all the years during which they lived together, the defender contributed more than the pursuer to the household finances and during the period when she was out of employment, he supported the family on his own. It is not suggested that the defender ever failed to maintain the family in a good standard of living. In my view this is a counterbalancing consideration which I am entitled by section 11 (2) to apply. The pursuer’s economic disadvantage is not the worst that she could have suffered. She was able to return to her professional employment soon after the birth of each child and she has for some considerable time been in full-time pensioned employment and making her own contributions to a top up pension. I distinguish this case from a case such as Loudon v Loudon where the property was decided in the proportions 55/45 per cent in the pursuer’s favour largely on the basis that the pursuer was untrained and had no pension and that there was a great disparity between her assets and those of the defender (at 1994 SLT p 385C). I distinguish this case also from McCormick v McCormick, where the wife was at a disadvantage in that it would be difficult for her to gain employment at her age in her former profession (at p 10); and from Cunniff v Cunniff where the wife who received a transfer order had not worked for over 20 years, had an earning power not remotely comparable with that of her husband and, if not given the matrimonial home, would not have been able to afford alternative accommodation (at pp12-13). I conclude therefore that in this case an unequal division in the pursuer’s favour is not justified...’, Lord Gill
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.