Renton v Shahnavaz or Walton or Renton [2011] ScotCS CSIH_21 (18 March 2011)

Renton v Shahnavaz or Walton or Renton [2011] ScotCS CSIH_21 (18 March 2011)

The appeal was refused because the appellant failed to provide transcripts or sufficient evidence to challenge the sheriff's findings of fact or exercise of discretion. The sheriff's approach to valuation, division of property, and refusal of periodical allowance was within the law and discretion. The sheriff's findings that the partnership had no financial value and that the only divisible asset was the matrimonial home were not shown to be erroneous. Procedural complaints and alleged errors of fact could not be addressed without transcripts. No error of law or misdirection was established.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_21
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Gordon Barbour Renton; Defender and Appellant: Parinaz Shahnavaz or Walton or Renton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Financial Provision Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Inner House, Court of Session
Outcome
Appeal refused; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Financial Provision on Divorce, Division of Matrimonial Property, Partnership Assets, Periodical Allowance, Evidential Burden
Family Law Partnership Law Divorce Financial Provision on Divorce Division of Matrimonial Property Partnership Assets Periodical Allowance Evidential Burden

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Barbour Renton

Pursuer and Respondent

Parinaz Shahnavaz or Walton or Renton

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Financial Provision Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Inner House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff erred in valuation and division of matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether partnership assets were properly included and valued
  3. 3 Whether periodical allowance should have been awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the appellant failed to provide transcripts or sufficient evidence to challenge the sheriff's findings of fact or exercise of discretion. The sheriff's approach to valuation, division of property, and refusal of periodical allowance was within the law and discretion. The sheriff's findings that the partnership had no financial value and that the only divisible asset was the matrimonial home were not shown to be erroneous. Procedural complaints and alleged errors of fact could not be addressed without transcripts. No error of law or misdirection was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of appellant's appeal on all grounds
  • Dismissal of respondent's cross-appeal