G AGAINST G [2017] ScotSC 37 (12 June 2017)

G AGAINST G [2017] ScotSC 37 (12 June 2017)

The court held that the obligation to implement the Pension Sharing Order rests with the pension trustees, not the defender, and thus there is no obligation on the defender that could be secured by a standard security. The pursuer's application was therefore incompetent. Further, even if competent, the application lacked sufficient averments to justify the order under Section 9 of the 1985 Act and would have failed for lack of relevancy and specification.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 37
Parties
Pursuer: G (Residing in Aberdeen); Defender: G (Residing by Stonehaven)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law (divorce and Financial Provision) / Post Decree Incidental Order Application
Outcome
Pursuer's Minute dismissed as incompetent.
Legal Topics
Pension Sharing Order, Incidental Orders, Standard Security, Financial Provision on Divorce, Res Judicata, Competency of Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Pension Sharing Order Incidental Orders Standard Security Financial Provision on Divorce Res Judicata Competency of Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G (Residing in Aberdeen)

Pursuer

G (Residing by Stonehaven)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Family Law (divorce and Financial Provision) / Post Decree Incidental Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender can be ordered to provide security over heritable property to secure implementation of a Pension Sharing Order
  2. 2 Whether such an order is competent under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 and Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970
  3. 3 Whether the obligation to implement a Pension Sharing Order rests on the defender or the pension trustees

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the obligation to implement the Pension Sharing Order rests with the pension trustees, not the defender, and thus there is no obligation on the defender that could be secured by a standard security. The pursuer's application was therefore incompetent. Further, even if competent, the application lacked sufficient averments to justify the order under Section 9 of the 1985 Act and would have failed for lack of relevancy and specification.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's Minute dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

  • Repels the plea in law for the pursuer.
  • Sustains the second plea in law for the defender.