Deptford v. Simpson [2007] ScotSC 13 (11 April 2007)

Deptford v. Simpson [2007] ScotSC 13 (11 April 2007)

The Single Farm Payment entitlement was sufficiently ascertainable and vested at the relevant date to be matrimonial property. The defender's inheritance, having been invested in the farm business, was converted into matrimonial property. There were no special circumstances justifying unequal sharing. The pursuer was entitled to a capital sum reflecting equal division, less assets already received and interim payment.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 13
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Julie Deptford or Simpson; Defender: George Alexander Hendry Simpson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Family Law (financial Provision on Divorce) / Final Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Judgment for pursuer; capital sum awarded; interest and expenses granted.
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Financial Provision on Divorce, Valuation of Assets, Single Farm Payment, Inheritance and Matrimonial Property
Family Law Matrimonial Property Financial Provision on Divorce Valuation of Assets Single Farm Payment Inheritance and Matrimonial Property

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Julie Deptford or Simpson

Pursuer

George Alexander Hendry Simpson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law (financial Provision on Divorce) / Final Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Single Farm Payment entitlement is matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether defender's inheritance forms part of matrimonial property
  3. 3 Proper valuation and division of matrimonial assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Single Farm Payment entitlement was sufficiently ascertainable and vested at the relevant date to be matrimonial property. The defender's inheritance, having been invested in the farm business, was converted into matrimonial property. There were no special circumstances justifying unequal sharing. The pursuer was entitled to a capital sum reflecting equal division, less assets already received and interim payment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for pursuer; capital sum awarded; interest and expenses granted.

Orders

  • Pursuer's 2nd and 3rd craves dismissed.
  • Defender's 2nd, 3rd and 5th pleas-in-law repelled.