Cruickshank & Anor v. Dehvasati [2004] ScotCS 233 (27 October 2004)

Cruickshank & Anor v. Dehvasati [2004] ScotCS 233 (27 October 2004)

The sheriff principal was entitled to order transfer of the appellant's share in the matrimonial home to the respondent due to special circumstances, including the respondent's sole responsibility for caring for the children and maintaining the home, and the children's strong desire to remain in the home. The appellant's claims of conspiracy and improper valuation were unsupported and irrelevant to the appeal.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 233
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mrs. Sheena Margaret Cruickshank or Zakeri Dehvasati; Defender and Appellant: Gholam Hossein Zakeri Dehvasati
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Property Transfer, Child Welfare
Family Law Divorce Matrimonial Property Property Transfer Child Welfare

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

Parties

Mrs. Sheena Margaret Cruickshank or Zakeri Dehvasati

Pursuer and Respondent

Gholam Hossein Zakeri Dehvasati

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances justify unequal division of matrimonial property under section 10(6) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff principal erred in ordering transfer of appellant's share in matrimonial home
  3. 3 Validity of appellant's claims regarding conspiracies and property valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff principal was entitled to order transfer of the appellant's share in the matrimonial home to the respondent due to special circumstances, including the respondent's sole responsibility for caring for the children and maintaining the home, and the children's strong desire to remain in the home. The appellant's claims of conspiracy and improper valuation were unsupported and irrelevant to the appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Decree of divorce affirmed
  • Order for transfer of appellant's share in matrimonial home to respondent affirmed