ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2009] ScotSC 66 (30 January 2009)

ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2009] ScotSC 66 (30 January 2009)

The court held that the £100,000 from Westerton Ltd was not a loan but a contribution by the Pursuer and should not be deducted from the house value; the £80,000 Harewood Ridge sum was matrimonial property at the relevant date. The Defender suffered economic disadvantage during the marriage. The net matrimonial property should be divided equally, and the Defender is entitled to a capital sum of £462,240.05 under s.9(1)(a) and £77,400 under s.9(1)(b) of the 1985 Act. The former matrimonial home should be sold, and no periodic allowance is awarded as the capital sum is sufficient.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 66
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Alexander Porter; Defender: Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; capital sum and economic disadvantage sum awarded to Defender; order for sale of matrimonial home; no periodic allowance; expenses awarded to Defender.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision on Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Economic Disadvantage, Child Residence and Contact
Family Law Divorce Financial Provision on Divorce Matrimonial Property Economic Disadvantage Child Residence and Contact

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 21
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Alexander Porter

Pursuer

Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter

Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the £100,000 from Westerton Ltd is matrimonial property or a loan to be repaid
  2. 2 Whether the £80,000 Harewood Ridge sum is matrimonial property
  3. 3 Assessment of economic disadvantage to the Defender

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the £100,000 from Westerton Ltd was not a loan but a contribution by the Pursuer and should not be deducted from the house value; the £80,000 Harewood Ridge sum was matrimonial property at the relevant date. The Defender suffered economic disadvantage during the marriage. The net matrimonial property should be divided equally, and the Defender is entitled to a capital sum of £462,240.05 under s.9(1)(a) and £77,400 under s.9(1)(b) of the 1985 Act. The former matrimonial home should be sold, and no periodic allowance is awarded as the capital sum is sufficient.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; capital sum and economic disadvantage sum awarded to Defender; order for sale of matrimonial home; no periodic allowance; expenses awarded to Defender.

Orders

  • Divorces the Defender from the Pursuer.
  • Orders payment by the Pursuer to the Defender of £539,640.05 (comprising £462,240.05 under s.9(1)(a) and £77,400 under s.9(1)(b)), with interest at 8% per annum from citation until lodgement of sale proceeds.