Expensive lesson

In Findlay v Findlay the sheriff strayed into s 9(1)(b) and (c) in awarding a capital sum when there were no pleadings to justify this approach. The sheriff also erred in failing to take into account the fact that the matrimonial home was in joint names in arriving at an order for a capital payment of just over £8,000.

Mrs Findlay pitched up with senior counsel at the appeal hearing, apparently to the surprise of the defender’s solicitor, and the sheriff principal was able to determine on the day that the sheriff’s application of the statutory provisions was “plainly incorrect”.

The sheriff principal did however appear to indicate that, notwithstanding pleadings in respect of the defender’s resources, and indeed an apparent concession on the part of Mr Findlay that resources were not an issue, the court should exercise a cautious approach which pays due cognisance to the “practical realities of the situation”.

Nevertheless, the husband now faces having to find £50,000, rather than £8,000, together with expenses for senior counsel’s attendance at the appeal hearing.