McKinnon v. McKinnon [2007] ScotSC 75 (20 November 2007)

McKinnon v. McKinnon [2007] ScotSC 75 (20 November 2007)

There is no statutory or judicial hierarchy between capital sum and property transfer orders; the sheriff's decision achieved a fair division of matrimonial property and should not be interfered with, as both options were financially equivalent and the evidence did not support preferring one over the other.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 75
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Mrs Patricia McKinnon; Defender/appellant: Angus McKinnon
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Property, Financial Provision on Divorce, Property Transfer Order, Capital Sum Order, Legal Aid Claw Back
Family Law Division of Matrimonial Property Financial Provision on Divorce Property Transfer Order Capital Sum Order Legal Aid Claw Back

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Patricia McKinnon

Pursuer/respondent

Angus McKinnon

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in exercising discretion by favouring a property transfer order over a capital sum order due to legal aid claw back implications
  2. 2 Whether there is a hierarchy between capital sum and property transfer orders under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory or judicial hierarchy between capital sum and property transfer orders; the sheriff's decision achieved a fair division of matrimonial property and should not be interfered with, as both options were financially equivalent and the evidence did not support preferring one over the other.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Defender/appellant liable to pursuer/respondent in expenses of the appeal as taxed.
  • Pursuer/respondent allowed to make up an account of expenses; upon lodging, account remitted to Auditor of Court to tax and report.