SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WORKS AND PENSIONS v. JAMES McCULLOCH [2009] ScotSC 58 (06 January 2009)
The sheriff erred by failing to make the mandatory inquiries required by Section 39A(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 before dismissing the action. The requirements of the statute are mandatory and must be followed.
- Citation
- [2009] ScotSC 58
- Parties
- Appellant and Pursuer: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Respondent and Defender: James McCulloch
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 06 January 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Action at Proof Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 25 July 2008 recalled; case remitted for inquiry under Section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991.
- Legal Topics
- Child Support, Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Procedural Fairness
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Appellant and Pursuer
James McCulloch
Respondent and Defender
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Action at Proof Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sheriff erred in dismissing the action without making mandatory inquiries under Section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991
- 2 Whether the requirements of Section 39A(3) are mandatory and were complied with
Ratio Decidendi
The sheriff erred by failing to make the mandatory inquiries required by Section 39A(3) of the Child Support Act 1991 before dismissing the action. The requirements of the statute are mandatory and must be followed.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 25 July 2008 recalled; case remitted for inquiry under Section 39A of the Child Support Act 1991.
Orders
- Allows the appeal
- Recalls the interlocutor of 25 July 2008
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment