Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. Expensive lesson

Expensive lesson

9th September 2014 | family-child law

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.

Findlay v Findlay, Glasgow Sheriff Court, 14 March 2014
Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited