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.
Held: The the pursuer was ‘a confident witness, capable of being firm and even robust in the face of cross-examination’, and that ‘there was an energy in his responses that had an air of conviction about it’. He acknowledged that the pursuer’s evidence ‘lacked much in the way of specifics or circumstantial detail’ in relation to the second transaction and that he had forgotten some matters. As to the defender: ‘The content of the first defender’s evidence and the manner in which he gave it raised sharp questions as to whether he was a witness in whom the court could have confidence.’ He was not a witness upon whom he coud rely.
Judges:
Lord Ordinary, Lord Brodie
Citations:
[2009] ScotCS CSOH – 142, [2009] CSOH 142
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
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
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 . .
See Also – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 13-Mar-2012
. .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts, Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.377366