Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
14 Interdict competent where spouses live together.
(1) It shall not be incompetent for the court to entertain an application by a spouse for a matrimonial interdict by reason only that the spouses are living together as man and wife. (2) In this section ... of this Act— “matrimonial interdict” means an interdict including an interim interdict which— (a) restrains or prohibits any conduct of one spouse towards the other spouse or a child of the family, or (b) subject to subsection (3), prohibits a spouse from entering or remaining in— (i) a matrimonial home; (ii) any other residence occupied by the applicant spouse; (iii) any place of work of the applicant spouse; (iv) any school attended by a child in the permanent or temporary care of the applicant spouse. (3) Subsection (4) applies if in relation to a matrimonial home the non-applicant spouse— (a) is an entitled spouse; or (b) has occupancy rights. (4) Except where subsection (5) applies, the court may not grant a matrimonial interdict prohibiting the non-applicant spouse from entering or remaining in the matrimonial home. (5) This subsection applies if— (a) the interdict is ancillary to an exclusion order; or (b) by virtue of section 1(3), the court refuses leave to exercise occupancy rights. (6) In this section ..., “ applicant spouse ” means the spouse who has applied for the interdict; and “ non-applicant spouse ” shall be construed accordingly.
14 Interdict competent where spouses live together.
(1) It shall not be incompetent for the court to entertain an application by a spouse for a matrimonial interdict by reason only that the spouses are living together as man and wife. (2) In this section ... of this Act— “matrimonial interdict” means an interdict including an interim interdict which— (a) restrains or prohibits any conduct of one spouse towards the other spouse or a child of the family, or (b) subject to subsection (3), prohibits a spouse from entering or remaining in— (i) a matrimonial home; (ii) any other residence occupied by the applicant spouse; (iii) any place of work of the applicant spouse; (iv) any school attended by a child in the permanent or temporary care of the applicant spouse. (3) Subsection (4) applies if in relation to a matrimonial home the non-applicant spouse— (a) is an entitled spouse; or (b) has occupancy rights. (4) Except where subsection (5) applies, the court may not grant a matrimonial interdict prohibiting the non-applicant spouse from entering or remaining in the matrimonial home. (5) This subsection applies if— (a) the interdict is ancillary to an exclusion order; or (b) by virtue of section 1(3), the court refuses leave to exercise occupancy rights. (6) In this section ..., “ applicant spouse ” means the spouse who has applied for the interdict; and “ non-applicant spouse ” shall be construed accordingly.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.