Barns or McCaskill v McCaskill [2004] ScotSC 63 (22 September 2004)

Barns or McCaskill v McCaskill [2004] ScotSC 63 (22 September 2004)

The Sheriff was correct to order the sale of the flat and equal division of proceeds, as this achieved a fair and practicable result in accordance with the law and common sense. Ordering transfer to the husband at the relevant date value would have resulted in an inequitable windfall and was not justified by the circumstances.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 63
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Shona Scott Barns or McCaskill; Defender and Appellant: Douglas Glen McCaskill
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision, Matrimonial Property, Pension Sharing, Property Sale, Discretion of Court
Family Law Divorce Financial Provision Matrimonial Property Pension Sharing Property Sale Discretion of Court

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shona Scott Barns or McCaskill

Pursuer and Respondent

Douglas Glen McCaskill

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff erred in ordering sale of the matrimonial home instead of transfer to the husband
  2. 2 Whether the division of matrimonial property and calculation of capital sum was correct
  3. 3 Whether the Sheriff's exercise of discretion was open to challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff was correct to order the sale of the flat and equal division of proceeds, as this achieved a fair and practicable result in accordance with the law and common sense. Ordering transfer to the husband at the relevant date value would have resulted in an inequitable windfall and was not justified by the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Appeal refused
  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 12 February 2004 adhered to