Mahmood v. Mahmood [2007] ScotSC 30 (29 June 2007)

Mahmood v. Mahmood [2007] ScotSC 30 (29 June 2007)

The appeal must be refused because the rules of court intentionally exclude family actions such as divorce from reponing procedures, and the appellate court cannot allow an appeal on equitable grounds where the sheriff has not erred. The absence of a reponing procedure in such cases reflects a deliberate policy choice, and the only remedy is an action of reduction in the Court of Session.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 30
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Kashif Mahmood; Defender and Appellant: Amina Ejaz or Mahmood
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Decree of Divorce (undefended) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Decree in Absence, Appeal Procedure, Reponing Note, Financial Provision on Divorce
Family Law Civil Procedure Divorce Decree in Absence Appeal Procedure Reponing Note Financial Provision on Divorce

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kashif Mahmood

Pursuer and Respondent

Amina Ejaz or Mahmood

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Decree of Divorce (undefended) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal against a decree of divorce granted in absence can be allowed on equitable grounds or only on error of law
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a reponing procedure in family actions precludes the appellate court from considering reponing considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal must be refused because the rules of court intentionally exclude family actions such as divorce from reponing procedures, and the appellate court cannot allow an appeal on equitable grounds where the sheriff has not erred. The absence of a reponing procedure in such cases reflects a deliberate policy choice, and the only remedy is an action of reduction in the Court of Session.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Defender and appellant found liable as an assisted person to the pursuer and respondent in the expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to the auditor of court to tax and report.