Woman abused by husband for two decades awarded £200,000 in compensation by Scottish courts

A woman whose former husband subjected her to more than two decades of physical and emotional abuse has been awarded more than £200,000 in damages at Scotland’s highest civil court.

The woman, who has been identified only as X, raised an action at the Court of Session against her former spouse, identified only as Y.

Her lawyers brought proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, seeking compensation for Y’s behaviour towards her during their marriage.

Lord Young heard evidence about a number of incidents in which Y was alleged to have abused his former wife.

The court was told that Y had previously been convicted at a sheriff court of two charges of assault and two charges of threatening and abusive behaviour. He received a community-based sentence and the sheriff imposed a non-harassment order.

The court heard that the couple had lived in Edinburgh and London.

Y was formerly a journalist and writer and later held highly paid marketing and communications roles in the financial sector.

He described himself in evidence as “essentially a salesman”.

The court heard that Y said he took demanding financial-sector jobs to earn enough money to maintain the family’s lifestyle, which included sending children to boarding school.

X had an arts background and later qualified as a psychotherapist.

The court heard that X’s medical records contained an entry from September 1997 recording that she had been “assaulted”, “thrown around a room”, and had bruising around her right eye, a bruise to her left thigh and pain in her neck and lumbar muscles.

A further GP entry from 2001 referred to “domestic violence” and alcohol. Lord Young treated the GP entries as describing distinct physical assaults causing injuries significant enough for X to attend her doctor.

In 2006, Y assaulted X after she told him she was pregnant. Lord Young found that Y called her “a b***h”, hit her on the face, pulled her necklace off and caused a shoulder injury.

In 2008, when X was visiting Mexico, the court heard that Y reneged on an understanding that he would help look after their children in her absence.

The court heard that he hired a van, removed items of furniture from the family home and moved out without leaving a forwarding address.

He left the children in the care of the au pair until X returned.

The court heard about several other incidents. X also claimed she had been raped by Y, but Lord Young held that the rape allegations had not been proved on the balance of probabilities.

Lawyers for X argued that Y had pursued a long-term course of harassment during their marriage and that this breached section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Y, who represented himself, denied the abuse claims. He accepted that he had sometimes been a poor husband and father and that he had had an affair. But he denied ever assaulting his wife or forcing sex upon her.

In his written judgment, Lord Young ruled in favour of X.

He wrote: “I have no difficulty concluding that each of the physical assaults which I find took place throughout the period 1997-2018 form part of a single course of conduct directed at causing both physical and psychological harm to the pursuer. I also find that when the defender directed abusive terms at the pursuer or made criticisms of her appearance, these fall to be viewed as part of the same course of conduct.

“Such language had as its primary purpose the aim of hurting or humiliating the pursuer.

“When viewed along with the physical assaults, it is clear to me that the defender’s verbal abuse was designed to undermine the pursuer’s confidence so that he could assert a degree of control over her.

“I also conclude that the defender’s decision to renege on his undertaking to look after the children while the pursuer was in Mexico was aimed at causing maximum anxiety and upset for the pursuer when she was far from her children.

“It is telling that he acted in this manner at a time that the pursuer was asserting a degree of independence from him by travelling abroad.

“It is an instance, comparable with his behaviour towards the pursuer when she sought to develop art exhibitions, which indicates that the defender sought to exert coercive control when he felt threatened by the pursuer’s independence.

“I find that the defender harassed the pursuer contrary to section 8 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and grant decree in the sum of £200,040.”

Y later attempted to appeal Lord Young’s decision to the Inner House of the Court of Session.

He argued that Lord Young’s decision was wrong. However, appeal judges Lady Carmichael, Lord Clark and Lady Wise concluded that the judge had been entitled to reach the decision he did.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lady Carmichael wrote: “We therefore refuse the reclaiming motion.”