Bogie Or Nisbet Or Jackson v Jackson [1999] ScotCS 182 (28 July 1999)

Bogie Or Nisbet Or Jackson v Jackson [1999] ScotCS 182 (28 July 1999)

The court held that the presumption of equal sharing of matrimonial property was not displaced by special circumstances, as the evidence did not clearly establish that the source of funds for the main assets was sufficiently derived from pre-marriage efforts to justify inequality. The shareholdings and pensions were valued without discounts for minority holdings or early termination, reflecting the reality of an anticipated sale and the actual completion of pension service. The appropriate order was for a capital sum to equalise the division, payable after the sale of company shares, with no property transfer order for the house.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 182
Parties
Pursuer: Beatrice Cummings McKenzie Bogie or Nisbet or Jackson; Defender: Peter Jackson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; financial provision ordered as capital sum to pursuer; order for sale of company shares; no property transfer order for house.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision, Matrimonial Property, Pension Valuation, Property Transfer, Capital Sum, Equal Sharing, Special Circumstances
Family Law Divorce Financial Provision Matrimonial Property Pension Valuation Property Transfer Capital Sum Equal Sharing +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beatrice Cummings McKenzie Bogie or Nisbet or Jackson

Pursuer

Peter Jackson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marriage has broken down irretrievably by reason of the defender's behaviour
  2. 2 How the matrimonial property should be valued and divided
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances justify unequal sharing of matrimonial property

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the presumption of equal sharing of matrimonial property was not displaced by special circumstances, as the evidence did not clearly establish that the source of funds for the main assets was sufficiently derived from pre-marriage efforts to justify inequality. The shareholdings and pensions were valued without discounts for minority holdings or early termination, reflecting the reality of an anticipated sale and the actual completion of pension service. The appropriate order was for a capital sum to equalise the division, payable after the sale of company shares, with no property transfer order for the house.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; financial provision ordered as capital sum to pursuer; order for sale of company shares; no property transfer order for house.

Orders

  • Decree of divorce granted on ground of irretrievable breakdown by defender's behaviour.
  • Award of capital sum of £38,750 in favour of the pursuer, payable after realisation of capital in P & B Enterprises Limited.