ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2010] ScotSC 86 (14 May 2010)

ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2010] ScotSC 86 (14 May 2010)

The £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was under the pursuer's control and for his benefit, and thus was matrimonial property at the relevant date. The sheriff was correct in this finding. However, the sheriff erred in including the full amount of the defender's legal fees and credit card debt as economic disadvantage...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 86
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Robert Alexander Porter; Defender and Respondent: Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal From Interlocutor of Sheriff
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor varied
Legal Topics
Division of Matrimonial Property, Economic Disadvantage, Capital Sum on Divorce, Section 9(1)(a) and (b) Family Law (scotland) Act 1985, Appeal Against Financial Provision
Family Law Division of Matrimonial Property Economic Disadvantage Capital Sum on Divorce Section 9(1)(a) and (b) Family Law (scotland) Act 1985 Appeal Against Financial Provision

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Alexander Porter

Pursuer and Appellant

Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal From Interlocutor of Sheriff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether sheriff erred in awarding capital sum under section 9(1)(b) for economic disadvantage
  3. 3 Appropriateness of specific elements included in capital sum (salary, mortgage arrears, loans, credit card debt, limited employment prospects)

Ratio Decidendi

The £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was under the pursuer's control and for his benefit, and thus was matrimonial property at the relevant date. The sheriff was correct in this finding. However, the sheriff erred in including the full amount of the defender's legal fees and credit card debt as economic disadvantage under section 9(1)(b), as these were not fully attributable to the pursuer's conduct or suffered in the interests of the family. The award for limited employment prospects, though not well quantified, was within the sheriff's discretion and supported by precedent. The capital sum under section 9(1)(b) was therefore to be adjusted to remove the legal fees and reduce the credit...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor varied

Orders

  • The £80,000 is matrimonial property and included in division.
  • The capital sum under section 9(1)(b) is reduced by removing the legal fees element and reducing the credit card element to £2,401.07.