Cwr Against Lvbr
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff W Holligan,Sheriff Principal M W Lewis,Sheriff Principal I R Abercrombie QC |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] SAC (CIV) 3 |
| Court | Sheriff Appeal Court |
| Date | 25 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | EDI-F29-17 |
| Published date | 09 March 2020 |
SHERIFF APPEAL COURT
[2020] SAC (CIV) 3
EDI-F29-17
Sheriff Principal Abercrombie QC
Sheriff Principal Lewis
Appeal Sheriff Holligan
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by APPEAL SHERIFF W HOLLIGAN
in appeal by
CWR
Pursuer and Appellant
against
LVBR
Defender and Respondent
Pursuer and Appellant: Spier, advocate; Turcan Connell
Defender and Respondent: Scott QC; Morton Fraser LLP
25 February 2020
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal concerning orders made for financial provision on divorce in terms
of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 (“ the 1985Act”). The case was a complex one heard
over six days with six inventories of productions (228 productions) for the appellant and five
inventories of productions (158 productions) for the respondent. The sheriff issued two
judgments: the first dated 21 September 2018 (“the September judgment”); the second dated
18 January 2019 (“the January judgment”). The September judgment extends to 129 pages;
2
the January judgment 24 pages. Some of the issues before the sheriff are no longer in
dispute in this appeal.
[2] The pursuer and appellant is the husband; defender and respondent is the wife. The
parties were married in October 2005 having commenced cohabiting in September 2004. The
parties have three children under the age of 16. Having reached agreement as to the care of
the children (essentially a shared care arrangement) orders were neither sought nor granted
in respect thereof. The children are all of school age and attend a private school. Before the
parties’ separation the parties lived in a substantial property described in the judgment as B
Street. After separating the respondent lived in a property known as E Street.
[3] In his pleadings the appellant sought decree of divorce, an order for the transfer of
the respondent’s interest in B Street to him (title being taken in joint names) and ancillary
orders. The respondent sought an order for the sale of B Street to her, the transfer of the
appellant’s interest in E Street, free of a secured charge, payment of a capital sum of
£1,000,000 and periodic allowance of £2,500 per month. In his January judgment the sheriff
granted decree of divorce (which is not disputed); orders for the respondent to transfer her
interest in B Street to the appellant; transfer by the appellant of his interest in E Street to the
respondent, free of all encumbrances; payment of a capital sum by the appellant to the
respondent amounting to £158,458 with interest at the rate of 4% from 1 September 2018
until 18 January 2019 and thereafter at the judicial rate of 8% until payment. No award of
periodical allowance was made. The sheriff found the appellant liable to the respondent in
expenses, modified to 65%; allowed the respondent an increase in fees and sanctioned the
employment of senior counsel. Certain witnesses were certified as skilled witnesses.
[4] The September judgment contained findings in fact and findings in fact and law and
a detailed note. However, the operative part of the interlocutor did nothing other than
To continue reading
Request your trial