Hodge v. Hodge [2006] ScotSC 72 (28 November 2006)

Hodge v. Hodge [2006] ScotSC 72 (28 November 2006)

The Sheriff Principal held that the defender's 25% shareholding was a minority interest justifying a discount, that the Sheriff was entitled to select a 30% discount based on expert evidence, and that the quantification of economic advantage at £10,000 was within the Sheriff's discretion. The appeal on these grounds was refused. The periodical allowance order was recalled by consent, and the matter of expenses was reserved for further hearing.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 72
Parties
Pursuer: Alison Hodge; Defender: Alistair Hodge
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Divorce/financial Provision / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
Appeal by pursuer refused; cross-appeal by defender partially allowed by consent; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to with modification; periodical allowance order recalled; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Property, Valuation of Minority Shareholding, Economic Advantage/disadvantage, Periodical Allowance, Expenses in Divorce Proceedings
Family Law Division of Matrimonial Property Valuation of Minority Shareholding Economic Advantage/disadvantage Periodical Allowance Expenses in Divorce Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Hodge

Pursuer

Alistair Hodge

Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce/financial Provision / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 30% discount should be applied to the value of the defender's minority shareholding in Hodge Plant Limited
  2. 2 Whether the sum of £10,000 was sufficient to recognise the economic advantage conferred by the pursuer upon the defender
  3. 3 Whether the Sheriff erred in awarding expenses of the proof against the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff Principal held that the defender's 25% shareholding was a minority interest justifying a discount, that the Sheriff was entitled to select a 30% discount based on expert evidence, and that the quantification of economic advantage at £10,000 was within the Sheriff's discretion. The appeal on these grounds was refused. The periodical allowance order was recalled by consent, and the matter of expenses was reserved for further hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal by pursuer refused; cross-appeal by defender partially allowed by consent; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to with modification; periodical allowance order recalled; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refusal of pursuer's appeal on all grounds
  • Refusal of defender's cross-appeal ground 1