STUART McCALLUM MELVILLE v. JEANETTE MACLEAN RITCHIE OR MELVILLE [2010] ScotSC 103 (09 June 2010)

STUART McCALLUM MELVILLE v. JEANETTE MACLEAN RITCHIE OR MELVILLE [2010] ScotSC 103 (09 June 2010)

The court found the defender failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the receipt was forged. The pursuer's evidence was preferred, establishing that £2,200 was paid as advance aliment and for school uniform. Therefore, the pursuer was not in arrears and the charge for payment was unjustified.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 103
Parties
Pursuer: Stuart McCallum Melville; Defender: Jeanette Maclean Ritchie or Melville
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (family Law) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree for pursuer; charge suspended; interdicts granted; expenses awarded to pursuer.
Legal Topics
Aliment (child Maintenance), Minute of Agreement, Forgery Allegation, Interdict, Suspension of Charge, Enforcement of Maintenance
Family Law Contract Law Aliment (child Maintenance) Minute of Agreement Forgery Allegation Interdict Suspension of Charge Enforcement of Maintenance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart McCallum Melville

Pursuer

Jeanette Maclean Ritchie or Melville

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (family Law) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer paid the defender £2,200 as advance aliment and for school uniform or only £200 for school uniform
  2. 2 Whether the receipt for £2,200 was forged by the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the defender was entitled to instruct a charge for payment of aliment for September, October, and November 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the defender failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the receipt was forged. The pursuer's evidence was preferred, establishing that £2,200 was paid as advance aliment and for school uniform. Therefore, the pursuer was not in arrears and the charge for payment was unjustified.

Court Disposition

Decree for pursuer; charge suspended; interdicts granted; expenses awarded to pursuer.

Orders

  • Suspends the charge served on 10th September 2009 proceeding upon the minute of agreement.
  • Interdicts the defender from instructing any further diligence in respect of said charge.