ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2010] ScotSC 85 (14 May 2010)

ROBERT ALEXANDER PORTER v. JILL DAWN TAYLOR OR PORTER [2010] ScotSC 85 (14 May 2010)

The £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was matrimonial property as it was under the pursuer's control and for his benefit, regardless of its source. The sheriff was correct in this finding. However, the sheriff erred in including the full amount of the defender's legal fees and credit card debt in the capital sum under section 9(1)(b), as these did not constitute economic disadvantage in the relevant sense or were already addressed by an award of expenses. The award for limited employment prospects, though not well quantified, was within the sheriff's discretion and supported by precedent.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 85
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Robert Alexander Porter; Defender and Respondent: Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor varied.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Financial Provision on Divorce, Economic Disadvantage, Capital Sum, Equal Division, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Divorce Matrimonial Property Financial Provision on Divorce Economic Disadvantage Capital Sum Equal Division Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

Robert Alexander Porter

Pursuer and Appellant

Jill Dawn Taylor or Porter

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in awarding a capital sum under section 9(1)(b) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
  3. 3 Appropriateness and quantification of elements comprising the capital sum awarded to the defender

Ratio Decidendi

The £80,000 paid to Harewood Ridge was matrimonial property as it was under the pursuer's control and for his benefit, regardless of its source. The sheriff was correct in this finding. However, the sheriff erred in including the full amount of the defender's legal fees and credit card debt in the capital sum under section 9(1)(b), as these did not constitute economic disadvantage in the relevant sense or were already addressed by an award of expenses. The award for limited employment prospects, though not well quantified, was within the sheriff's discretion and supported by precedent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor varied.

Orders

  • The £80,000 is matrimonial property and included in the division.
  • The capital sum awarded to the defender under section 9(1)(b) is reduced by removing the element for legal fees and reducing the credit card debt element to £2,401.07.