BRENDA JOHNSTONE DAVIE or STUART (AP) v. JOHN PIRRIE STUART [2000] ScotSC 25 (31st August, 2000)
The contingent liability to repay the property discount was not a debt incurred and outstanding at the relevant date; therefore, the net value of the matrimonial property should include the discount, and the capital sum awarded to the pursuer must reflect this.
- Citation
- [2000] ScotSC 25
- Parties
- Pursuer and Appellant: Brenda Johnstone Davie or Stuart; Defender and Respondent: John Pirrie Stuart
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Action / Appeal From Sheriff’s Interlocutor
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Property, Capital Sum on Divorce, Contingent Liabilities, Valuation of Matrimonial Assets
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brenda Johnstone Davie or Stuart
Pursuer and Appellant
John Pirrie Stuart
Defender and Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal From Sheriff’s Interlocutor
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a contingent liability to repay a property discount is a debt incurred and outstanding at the relevant date for division of matrimonial property
- 2 Proper calculation of net value of matrimonial property for capital sum award
Ratio Decidendi
The contingent liability to repay the property discount was not a debt incurred and outstanding at the relevant date; therefore, the net value of the matrimonial property should include the discount, and the capital sum awarded to the pursuer must reflect this.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part
Orders
- Sum of £12,366.59 substituted for £3,366.59 as capital sum payable to pursuer within four months with interest at 8% per annum from 1 January 2001 until payment
- Defender liable for expenses of appeal
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