[Contents]
1. Marshall v Marshall (1881) 8 R 702. Contrast Hunter v Hunter (1883) 11 R 359 where the husband's words were not intended to be taken seriously.
2. Hannah v Hannah 1931 SC 275; Riddell v Riddell 1952 SC 475.
3. McMahon v McMahon 1928 SN 37 and 158. But cf CD v AB 1908 SC 737.
4. Cf Thomson v Thomson 1908 SC 179.
5. Gallacher v Gallacher 1928 SC 586 and 1934 SC 339.
6. Para 8.4.
7. See eg Fairgrieve v Chalmers 1912 SC 745 at 747-"there never can be collusion unless you can show facts which, if proved, would show that the oath of calumny had been falsely sworn".
8. See Walker v Walker 1911 SC 163 at p168; Fairgrieve v Chaimers.1912 SC 745 at p747; Riddell v Riddell 1952 SC 475 at p482.
9. S9(3).
10. S8(2).
11. S9(1)(e).
12. 1978 SLT (Notes) 55.
13. 1979 SC 40.
14. See Law Com No 112 (1981) para 17; Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984,
15. Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, s10(1) and (5).
16. Social Security Act 1975 s29(1)(2) and (9).
17. Social Security (Widow's Benefit etc) Regulations 1979, para 8.
[Contents]