Philip Jackson Against Christine Burns
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff S G Collins QC |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] SC FAL 7 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 12 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | FAL/403/16 |
| Published date | 12 February 2019 |
SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE CENTRAL AND FIFE AT FALKIRK
[2019] SC FAL 7
FAL/403/16
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF SG COLLINS QC
in the cause
PHILIP JACKSON
Pursuer
against
CHRISTINE BURNS
Defender
Act: Berrill, Hill & Robb
Alt: Harris, Fraser Shepherd
Falkirk, 12 January 2018
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause,
FINDS IN FACT:
Introduction
1. The pursuer is Philip Jackson, whose date of birth is 21 May 1959. The defender is
Christine Burns, whose date of birth is 28 March 1958. The parties first formed a
relationship in around January 2002. They were both married at the time and they separated
from their respective spouses in order to pursue their relationship.
2. The parties cohabited between around April 2003 and December 2015, when their
relationship ended.
2
3. The parties both had children from their respective marriages, but none of these
children lived with the parties during the period of their cohabitation. Nor did they have
any children together.
4. Following separation from his wife, the pursuer moved into temporary, furnished,
holiday let accommodation near Cupar, a location convenient for him in relation to his then
employment. For this he had paid a rent of around £400 per month. Following separation
from her husband the defender moved into a rented property near Stirling. In around April
2003 the pursuer was required to give up his holiday let. The parties accordingly agreed
that he would move into the defender’s tenancy and he did so. The tenancy remained in the
defender’s name and the pursuer paid to her an amount representing half of the household
bills.
Kennedy Way
5. In August 2004 the defender purchased a house in Kennedy Way, Airth (“Kennedy
Way”). The parties then both moved into this property and lived together there for the
remaining 11 and half years of their relationship.
6. The defender purchased Kennedy Way for £105,000. It is a three bedroom detached
house. The defender paid £35,000 of the purchase price from her share of the proceeds of
her former matrimonial home, and took out a mortgage for the balance of £70,000. Both the
title to Kennedy Way and the mortgage were in the defender’s sole name. At no time was
there any discussion between the parties about the pursuer becoming a joint owner of
Kennedy Way.
7. The defender was solely responsible for paying the legal costs and outlays in relation
to the purchase of Kennedy Way. She purchased all the white goods, which were not
3
included in the sale. She bought all the furniture and furnishings herself, with the exception
of a sofa, to which the pursuer contributed part of the cost. She chose the décor.
8. Certain repair and improvement works were carried out at Kennedy Way over the
period when the parties lived together there. In particular they shared equally the cost of
carrying out necessary repairs to the eaves. The pursuer paid the whole cost of installing a
new shower and a new towel rail in the en suite bathroom. Since the parties’ separation the
defender has replaced this shower again. The defender alone paid to add a conservatory to
the house, at a cost to her of £10,000.
9. By the date of the parties’ separation Kennedy Way was worth £165,000 and the
balance of the mortgage was approximately £44,000. Accordingly the value of the house had
increased by £60,000 and the defender’s mortgage had reduced by around £26,000. Her
equity in the property had therefore increased from £35,000 to around £121,000, thus by
around £86,000. Should the defender have wished to realise this equity by sale there would
have been costs to her in marketing etc., of around £5,000. Deducting also the £10,000 which
the defender invested in the property by the purchase of the conservatory, the net increase
in the value of the defender’s interest in Kennedy Way was accordingly around £71,000 over
the period when the parties lived there together.
10. Throughout the whole period when the parties lived together they kept their
personal finances separate. At no time did they have a joint bank account. At no time did
they make any joint savings or take out joint life insurance. They never made joint wills, nor
did they make any other joint financial planning. They discussed the possibility of getting
married but never made arrangements to do so.
11. The monthly housing costs for Kennedy Way were in the region of £700 per month
over the whole period when the parties lived there. Of this, the mortgage payment was in
To continue reading
Request your trial