Demptford v. Simpson [2007] ScotSC 32 (02 July 2007)

Demptford v. Simpson [2007] ScotSC 32 (02 July 2007)

The Single Farm Payment did not form part of the matrimonial property as the scheme was not in force at the relevant date and the defender had no vested entitlement. The value of the pursuer's dogs was double-counted and should be excluded from the total value of the matrimonial property. The capital sum due to the pursuer must be recalculated accordingly.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 32
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mrs Julie Deptford or Simpson; Defender and Appellant: George Alexander Hendry Simpson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Divorce Action / Appeal From Interlocutor of 11 April 2007
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of 11 April 2007 recalled in relevant part; cause remitted to sheriff for further procedure.
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Capital Sum on Divorce, Valuation of Assets, Single Farm Payment, Sheep Quota, Appeal Procedure
Family Law Matrimonial Property Capital Sum on Divorce Valuation of Assets Single Farm Payment Sheep Quota 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Julie Deptford or Simpson

Pursuer and Respondent

George Alexander Hendry Simpson

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Action / Appeal From Interlocutor of 11 April 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Single Farm Payment constituted matrimonial property at the relevant date
  2. 2 Whether the value of the pursuer's dogs was double-counted in the matrimonial property
  3. 3 Correct calculation of the capital sum due to the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The Single Farm Payment did not form part of the matrimonial property as the scheme was not in force at the relevant date and the defender had no vested entitlement. The value of the pursuer's dogs was double-counted and should be excluded from the total value of the matrimonial property. The capital sum due to the pursuer must be recalculated accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; interlocutor of 11 April 2007 recalled in relevant part; cause remitted to sheriff for further procedure.

Orders

  • Recall of part of interlocutor sustaining 3rd plea-in-law for pursuer and ordering payment of capital sum prior to decree of divorce
  • Correction of findings regarding value of dogs and exclusion of Single Farm Payment from matrimonial property