Anderson v Anderson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1927 |
| Docket Number | No.65. |
| Date | 09 March 1927 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Murray, Lord President (Clyde), Lord Sands, Lord Blackburn, Lord Ashmore.
Husband and WifeExpenses in consistorial actionsInterim expenses ReclaimingWife defender and respondentApplication to Inner House for interim award in respect of outlays in Outer House.
A wife obtained decree of absolvitor in an action of divorce for desertion. The husband having reclaimed, counsel for the wife stated to the Court that she had received an interim award of 10 towards her expenses in the Outer House, and that the outlays in the Outer House, apart from fees, incurred on her behalf, amounted to 45. She asked for decree for the balance of this sum, and for a further interim award towards her expenses in the Inner House.
The Court refused a further award of the expenses incurred in the Outer House, in respect that the award which the wife had already received had enabled her to maintain her defence; but granted an interim award of 10, 10s. towards her expenses in the Inner House.
Johnston v. JohnstonSC, (1903) 5 F. 336, and Jaffray v. Jaffray, 1909 S. C.577, followed.
On 11th November 1926 William Stewart Anderson, Grandtully Mill, Strathtay, brought an action for divorce on the ground of desertion against his wife, Mrs Catherine Robertson M'Fallan or Anderson. On 6th January 1927 the Lord Ordinary (Murray) granted the defender an interim award of 10 of expenses against the pursuer. On 16th February 1927 the Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defender. The pursuer reclaimed.
On 9th March 1927, when the case appeared in the Single Bills of the First Division, counsel for the defender stated that the actual outlays, apart from counsel's and agent's fees, incurred on behalf of the defender in the Outer House amounted to 45, and moved the Court to grant decree in favour of the defender for the sum of 35, being the amount of her outlays after deduction of the sum of 10 already awarded in the Outer House. He also moved for an interim award of 10, 10s. towards the defender's expenses in the Inner House. Counsel referred to the undernoted cases.1
Counsel for the pursuer opposed, and argued;It was a well-settled rule that, in making an interim award, the Court should not take into account expenses already incurred in the Outer House.2 The award already made had enabled the defender to maintain her defence, which was the sole purpose of an interim award. The motion with regard to these expenses should, accordingly, be...
To continue reading
Request your trial