Fordyce v. Clark [2007] ScotSC 12 (16 March 2007)
It is not competent for the court to grant orders for sale of partnership assets under section 14(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 where such assets are held by the partnership and must be dealt with according to the partnership agreement and section 20(1) of the Partnership Act 1890. However, where both partners consent to the sale of a partnership asset, such as the farm, the court may grant an incidental order for its sale and division of proceeds. The defender's consent to the order for sale of the farm constituted a variation of the partnership agreement, making the order competent.
- Citation
- [2007] ScotSC 12
- Parties
- Pursuer: Patricia Fordyce or Burton or Clark; Defender: Allan Alfred Clark
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dated 24 August 2006
- Outcome
- Both appeals refused; interlocutor of 24 August 2006 adhered to; cross-appeal not dealt with; expenses reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Property, Incidental Orders, Competency of Orders, Partnership Assets in Divorce
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Patricia Fordyce or Burton or Clark
Pursuer
Allan Alfred Clark
Defender
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal Against Interlocutor Dated 24 August 2006
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it is competent to grant an incidental order for sale of partnership assets under section 14(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
- 2 Whether the defender is entitled to recall the incidental order for sale of the farm
- 3 Effect of partnership agreement on division of assets in divorce
Ratio Decidendi
It is not competent for the court to grant orders for sale of partnership assets under section 14(2)(a) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 where such assets are held by the partnership and must be dealt with according to the partnership agreement and section 20(1) of the Partnership Act 1890. However, where both partners consent to the sale of a partnership asset, such as the farm, the court may grant an incidental order for its sale and division of proceeds. The defender's consent to the order for sale of the farm constituted a variation of the partnership agreement, making the order competent.
Court Disposition
Both appeals refused; interlocutor of 24 August 2006 adhered to; cross-appeal not dealt with; expenses reserved.
Orders
- Refusal of pursuer's appeal against dismissal of craves 5 and 6
- Refusal of defender's appeal for recall of interlocutor dated 29 November 2005
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