legal consequences

Question 1

Sexual Relations:
S v HMA

Answer 1

no longer legal for husband to rape his wife

Question 2

contract:
Horsburgh v Horsburgh

Answer 2

Both partners of a marriage or civil partnership have the same contractual capacity and can sue each other.

Question 3

Aliment:
Kyte v Kyte

Answer 3

Woman in adulterous relationship assisted depressed husband in committing suicide knowing she would gain financially. Her lump-sum payment was significantly reduced due to her conduct.

Question 4

aliment:
walker v walker

Answer 4

Conduct should be accounted for when considering aliment.

Question 5

property:
Pyatt v Pyatt

Answer 5

Lottery ticker bought with household finances. Winnings should be shared equally since the money came from sheer luck.

Question 6

matrimonial and family home:
Bell v Bell

Answer 6

Exclusion orders should be necessary and a last resort. Exclusion order was dismissed since they were living apart and husband was not likely to breach their agreements.

Question 7

matrimonial and family home:
Brown v Brown

Answer 7

Don’t have to seek other solutions before an exclusion order if in desperation and it’s neccessary.

Question 8

tennancy:
McGowan v McGowan

Answer 8

Tenancy transferred to wife since husbands behaviour caused the divorce.

Question 9

Tenancy:
Souter v McAuley

Answer 9

Tenancy moved from original sole holder to his partner since original owners conduct caused the breakup.

Question 10

Interdicts:
Murdoch v Murdoch

Answer 10

Interdicts sought should be sufficiently precise.