STEPHEN CAMERON v. CAROLINE LUKES [2013] ScotSC 95 (23 December 2013)

STEPHEN CAMERON v. CAROLINE LUKES [2013] ScotSC 95 (23 December 2013)

The sheriff erred in offsetting the defender's economic advantage by an alleged economic disadvantage (loss of rental income) without proper averment or evidential basis. The absence of both pleading and evidence on this point was fatal to the sheriff's conclusion. The appeal was allowed, the sheriff's interlocutor was recalled, and decree granted for the full sum claimed by the pursuer.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 95
Parties
Pursuer: Stephen George Gallagher Cameron; Defender: Caroline Frame Lukes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Cohabitation, Economic Advantage and Disadvantage, Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006, Capital Sum Payment
Family Law Cohabitation Economic Advantage and Disadvantage Section 28 Family Law (scotland) Act 2006 Capital Sum Payment

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen George Gallagher Cameron

Pursuer

Caroline Frame Lukes

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in offsetting economic advantage with alleged economic disadvantage without proper averment or evidence
  2. 2 Whether the defender was entitled to offset for loss of rental income under section 28(5) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff erred in offsetting the defender's economic advantage by an alleged economic disadvantage (loss of rental income) without proper averment or evidential basis. The absence of both pleading and evidence on this point was fatal to the sheriff's conclusion. The appeal was allowed, the sheriff's interlocutor was recalled, and decree granted for the full sum claimed by the pursuer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 2 April 2013 recalled.
  • Decree for payment by the defender to the pursuer of £12,500 with interest at 8% per annum from date of citation until payment.