ELSPETH ANN DIGBY GRANT or AMIN v. SAYED HASSAN AMIN [2000] ScotSC 19 (12th July, 2000)
The application for an incidental order for sale of heritable property is incompetent after an unqualified order for payment of a capital sum has been made at the time of divorce, as Section 14 only authorises such orders in connection with orders made under Section 8(2) at the time of divorce.
- Citation
- [2000] ScotSC 19
- Parties
- Pursuer: Elspeth Ann Digby Grant or Amin; Defender: Sayed Hassan Amin
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Divorce, Financial Provision, Incidental Orders, Sale of Heritable Property, Capital Sum Payment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Elspeth Ann Digby Grant or Amin
Pursuer
Sayed Hassan Amin
Defender
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a pursuer can apply for an incidental order for sale of heritable property under Section 14 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 after decree of divorce and an unqualified order for payment of a capital sum has been made
Ratio Decidendi
The application for an incidental order for sale of heritable property is incompetent after an unqualified order for payment of a capital sum has been made at the time of divorce, as Section 14 only authorises such orders in connection with orders made under Section 8(2) at the time of divorce.
Court Disposition
appeal refused
Orders
- Appeal refused and sheriff's interlocutor of 9 March 2000 adhered to.
- Pursuer found liable to defender in expenses occasioned by the appeal; account remitted to auditor of court to tax and report.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment