Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, finds the following facts proved:
[1] In this action the pursuer asks the court to find and declare that he is not the father of the child JS.
[4] The proof called before me on 8 July and 29 August 2014, at which the pursuer was represented by Mrs MacPhee, Messrs Caesar & Howie, Solicitors, Bathgate. At the proof I heard evidence from the pursuer, his mother, his father, his brother, his present wife, and from a forensic science consultant (Dr Scott Bader). I thereafter took the case to avizandum.
[6] In relation to the evidence given by the pursuer and his various family members, there was nothing whatsoever to cause me to doubt any of that evidence. The pursuer gave his evidence, as did the other witnesses, in a way which seemed to me to be transparently honest. I did not get the impression that the pursuer has raised this action simply to try and avoid paying maintenance, and there was therefore no real reason for him, or anyone else, to seek to mislead me. I accordingly accept their evidence as being entirely reliable.
[7] The evidence I heard was to the following effect. The parties were married on 23 September 1995. The first defender had two children from a previous relationship. The child with which this action is concerned is JS. The parties separated about January 2007, and were divorced in about March 2009.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.