FELICITY FULWOOD v. ANDREW O'HALLORAN K/A SAPPER O'HALLORAN [2014] ScotSC 58 (11 March 2014)

FELICITY FULWOOD v. ANDREW O'HALLORAN K/A SAPPER O'HALLORAN [2014] ScotSC 58 (11 March 2014)

The pursuer's averments challenged under paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 lacked essential specification or were irrelevant to a claim under section 29 and therefore fell to be deleted from the record; averments challenged under paragraph 3 regarding debts paid by the pursuer after death were relevant under section 29(3)(d) and should remain for proof.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 58
Parties
Pursuer: Felicity Fulwood; Defender: Andrew O'Halloran k/a Sapper O'Halloran
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling After Debate on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part; specified averments deleted; remainder to proceed to proof; hearing appointed for further procedure and expenses.
Legal Topics
Cohabitant's Rights, Financial Provision on Death, Intestate Succession, Specification of Pleadings
Family Law Succession Law Cohabitant's Rights Financial Provision on Death Intestate Succession Specification of Pleadings

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicity Fulwood

Pursuer

Andrew O'Halloran k/a Sapper O'Halloran

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling After Debate on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's averments provide adequate specification for claims under section 29 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether certain averments are relevant to a claim under section 29
  3. 3 Whether debts paid by pursuer after death are relevant under section 29(3)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments challenged under paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 lacked essential specification or were irrelevant to a claim under section 29 and therefore fell to be deleted from the record; averments challenged under paragraph 3 regarding debts paid by the pursuer after death were relevant under section 29(3)(d) and should remain for proof.

Court Disposition

Defender's first plea-in-law sustained in part; specified averments deleted; remainder to proceed to proof; hearing appointed for further procedure and expenses.

Orders

  • Delete specified averments from the record as detailed in the interlocutor.
  • Appoint parties to be heard on further procedure and expenses.