Turner v. Turner [2009] ScotSC 41 (06 August 2009)

Turner v. Turner [2009] ScotSC 41 (06 August 2009)

The court held that a binding agreement was reached on 25 October 2007 by the parties' solicitors, who had actual, implied, and ostensible authority. The agreement was fair and reasonable at the time, and the pursuer's inability to raise funds or alleged inadequate legal advice did not justify setting it aside. The agreement must be implemented. If there had been no agreement, special circumstances would justify a 55/45 division of matrimonial property in favour of the pursuer due to the source of funds and economic disadvantage from childcare.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 41
Parties
Pursuer: Yolanda Lucia Maria Turner; Defender: Hugh Turner
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Decree of divorce granted; agreement of 25 October 2007 declared binding and to be implemented; defender awarded payment of £3081.98 with interest; other craves refused; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision on Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Authority of Solicitors, Implementation of Settlement Agreements
Family Law Divorce Financial Provision on Divorce Matrimonial Property Authority of Solicitors Implementation of Settlement Agreements

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yolanda Lucia Maria Turner

Pursuer

Hugh Turner

Defender

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding settlement agreement was reached between the parties on 25 October 2007
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was fair and reasonable at the time it was entered into under section 16(1)(b) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
  3. 3 Whether the agreement should be set aside for lack of authority, unfairness, or inability to implement

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a binding agreement was reached on 25 October 2007 by the parties' solicitors, who had actual, implied, and ostensible authority. The agreement was fair and reasonable at the time, and the pursuer's inability to raise funds or alleged inadequate legal advice did not justify setting it aside. The agreement must be implemented. If there had been no agreement, special circumstances would justify a 55/45 division of matrimonial property in favour of the pursuer due to the source of funds and economic disadvantage from childcare.

Court Disposition

Decree of divorce granted; agreement of 25 October 2007 declared binding and to be implemented; defender awarded payment of £3081.98 with interest; other craves refused; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Decree of divorce granted.
  • Pursuer to implement agreement of 25 October 2007, including payment to defender of £75000 less one half share of Norwich Union Endowment Policy as at date of separation, and assign her share of said policy to defender in exchange for defender assigning his interest in the former matrimonial home and specified bonds...