The defender appealed against rejection of his assertion that monies paid to him by his father was by way of gift.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Lord Ordinary’s conclusions were ‘plainly wrong’ when he stated that he did not find any of the other evidence materially to undermine the specifics of the pursuer’s account or his evidence more generally. On that basis, they concluded that they were entitled to overturn his decision and to substitute their own decision.
 ScotCS CSIH – 23,  CSIH 23
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 3-Nov-2009
The parties, father and his and and his wife, disputed whether advances of money had been by way of a gift from the father or otherwise, and accordingly whether property purchased in the son’s own name was to be transferred to the father.
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 7-May-2010
Consequential opinion as to remedies. . .
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 13-Mar-2012
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland : Costs) SC 28-Jan-2015
The parties, father and son had fallen out. The father said that a property purhased by the son with money provided by the father, was held in trust for the father. The Court had rejected the argument of the son that this had been a gift. The . .
Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC 31-Jul-2013
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.460275