Peebles v Bowman (Formerly Peebles) (AP) & Anor [2001] ScotCS 136 (31 May 2001)

Peebles v Bowman (Formerly Peebles) (AP) & Anor [2001] ScotCS 136 (31 May 2001)

The interlocutor of 6 April 1994 clearly intended and effected a reduction of the petitioner's alimentary obligation to nil from 1 January 1994, rendering the charge for payment of arrears after that date unjustified.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 136
Parties
Petitioner: Gordon Maclean Peebles; First Respondent: Rosalind Bowman (formerly Peebles) (A.P.); Second Respondent: Another (sheriff officer)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Petition for Suspension and Interdict / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition granted
Legal Topics
Aliment (child Support), Suspension of Charge, Interdict, Variation of Aliment Decree
Family Law Civil Procedure Aliment (child Support) Suspension of Charge Interdict Variation of Aliment Decree

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

Parties

Gordon Maclean Peebles

Petitioner

Rosalind Bowman (formerly Peebles) (A.P.)

First Respondent

Another (sheriff officer)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Suspension and Interdict / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner's liability for aliment under the decree of 14 July 1992 was reduced to nil by the interlocutor of 6 April 1994
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to enforce payment of arrears of aliment after 1 January 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The interlocutor of 6 April 1994 clearly intended and effected a reduction of the petitioner's alimentary obligation to nil from 1 January 1994, rendering the charge for payment of arrears after that date unjustified.

Court Disposition

petition granted

Orders

  • Decree suspending the charge for payment served on the petitioner.
  • Decree interdicting the first respondent or anyone acting on her behalf from doing further diligence on the decree of 14 July 1992 or on the charge for payment.