A reminder, if one were needed, of the extent to which divorce litigation can become an unseemly mess came from Perth Sheriff Court in Douglas v Douglas [2019] SC PER 4; 2019 GWD 2-32.

The action commenced based on the defender’s unreasonable behaviour. Amendment was sought to pursue on the basis of two years’ non-cohabitation, before reverting to a diluted version of unreasonable behaviour after the sheriff queried the competency of the original attempt to amend.

Confusingly, the sheriff appeared to suggest the defender could counter-crave for divorce based on the pursuer’s unreasonable behaviour. The case is worth reading too for a reminder for practitioners of the potential perils when a discredited client seeks to attribute blame on an agent for non-disclosure of material financial information.