MacKay v. Williammunro [2006] ScotSC 17 (21 March 2006)

MacKay v. Williammunro [2006] ScotSC 17 (21 March 2006)

The defender failed to properly plead and develop the argument that the capital sum should be reduced to reflect the economic burden of caring for the children. The sheriff was entitled to make the award as he did, having deferred payment to account for the defender's circumstances. The appeal is refused as the defender cannot now complain about the sheriff's decision in the absence of proper pleadings and submissions.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 17
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Sylvia MacKay or Munro; Defender and Appellant: Colin William Munro
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision / Appeal From Interlocutor of Sheriff Dated 7 June 2005
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Financial Provision, Residence Order, Economic Burden of Child Care
Family Law Divorce Matrimonial Property Financial Provision Residence Order Economic Burden of Child Care

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

Parties

Sylvia MacKay or Munro

Pursuer and Respondent

Colin William Munro

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision / Appeal From Interlocutor of Sheriff Dated 7 June 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in awarding the pursuer a capital sum of £18,900 as her share of matrimonial property without reducing it to reflect the defender's economic burden of caring for the children after a change in residence.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff properly considered the economic burden on the defender under sections 9(1)(c) and 11(3) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to properly plead and develop the argument that the capital sum should be reduced to reflect the economic burden of caring for the children. The sheriff was entitled to make the award as he did, having deferred payment to account for the defender's circumstances. The appeal is refused as the defender cannot now complain about the sheriff's decision in the absence of proper pleadings and submissions.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • No expenses due to or by either party in respect of the appeal.
  • Cause remitted to the sheriff to proceed as accords.