A north-east dog is at the centre of a bitter legal battle after its owners split up and could not agree where she should live.
Julie Smith and Gordon Duncan bought beloved pet Martha for £1,200 three years ago and she lived with them and another dog called Stella.
But when the couple’s relationship soured a year later, a dispute flared up over Martha’s permanent ownership.
Ms Smith and Mr Duncan had paid £600 each for Martha in June 2019 before their relationship ended in July the following year.
A series of rows broke out over custody of the dog and eventually the case ended up in court before a sheriff at Elgin Sheriff Court.
Dog custody battle wound up in court
Evidence presented at the hearings included dozens of documents, videos of Martha, and a copy of Facebook messages where Martha was wished a happy birthday.
Ms Smith had been the only one to sign ownership papers with one of Martha’s original sellers, Elgin Sheriff Court was told during the original hearing.
Her lawyers claimed this was enough to show Ms Smith should be given permanent ownership of the dog.
Mr Duncan, who has been caring for Martha since the split, claimed the pet was jointly owned by the couple and that he had covered the costs of looking after the dog on his own.
Can’t prove Martha’s ownership
A sheriff then ruled that even though Ms Smith’s signature was on the paperwork, it was “not sufficient” to prove ownership and granted Mr Duncan permission to continue to keep the dog.
However, Ms Smith has now turned to the Sheriff Appeal Court in a bid to overturn that ruling.
As part of the ongoing appeal, Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle has ordered a further hearing to take place and has demanded the original sheriff provide more justification for her own decision within 21 days.
He added: “In this appeal it is by no means clear whether the sheriff found as a matter of fact that there was a contract between the appellant and the owner, or owners, of the dog and if so the effect in law of that finding.
“There is no discussion at all of the evidence nor is there any discussion of the law which applies to contracts for the sale of corporeal moveables and, if relevant, the law where a party is in possession of them.
“Parties accepted that the appeal could not be dealt with properly without a fuller report from the sheriff.”
Another hearing will take place in due course.
For all the latest court cases in Aberdeen and the latest crime and breaking incidents, join our Facebook group.
