W v M

[2] This appeal first called before me on 13 February 2015 however the shorthand notes had not been extended and the hearing had to be adjourned for these to be obtained. The case called again on 23 June when I heard submissions and as a result of submissions I reverted to the sheriff seeking clarification of four matters. She produced a supplementary note dated 1 July and the case called again on 3 September for parties to address me in the light of the sheriff’s response.

[3] Having sought the supplementary note from the sheriff eight grounds of appeal fell to be considered.

The sheriff erred in law in finding that the defender had derived an economic advantage standing the financial position of the defender at the start of the period of cohabitation compared with that at the end of the said period.

The sheriff erred in law in finding that the pursuer suffered an economic disadvantage having regard to the fact there was no crave to this effect and having upheld the defender’s agent’s objection to such evidence being led.

The sheriff erred in law in making finding of fact and law number 4, in respect that there was no record for, nor any evidence of, the pursuer having suffered a loss of income of any sum, particularly £11,214.