Nixon v Livingston Football Club Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_43 (17 April 2015)

Nixon v Livingston Football Club Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_43 (17 April 2015)

The court found that an agreement was reached on 16 September 2010 among the investors, including the pursuer, that their loans to Livingston Football Club Limited would not be repayable on demand but only when the company could afford to repay them. This agreement crystallised a common understanding already present. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to repayment on demand of the sums loaned.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_43
Parties
Pursuer: Gerard Nixon; Defender: Livingston Football Club Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Facts and Law)
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defender; pursuer's pleas in law repelled; defender's second plea in law sustained; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Directors' Loans, Repayment Terms, Shareholder Agreements, Corporate Finance
Contract Law Company Law Directors' Loans Repayment Terms Shareholder Agreements Corporate Finance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Nixon

Pursuer

Livingston Football Club Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Proof Before Answer (trial on Facts and Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loans made by the pursuer to the defender were repayable on demand or only when the company could afford to repay them
  2. 2 Whether advances made by companies controlled by the pursuer are properly to be regarded as loans made by him personally

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that an agreement was reached on 16 September 2010 among the investors, including the pursuer, that their loans to Livingston Football Club Limited would not be repayable on demand but only when the company could afford to repay them. This agreement crystallised a common understanding already present. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to repayment on demand of the sums loaned.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the defender; pursuer's pleas in law repelled; defender's second plea in law sustained; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor (dismissal of the claim) in favour of Livingston Football Club Limited
  • Pursuer's pleas in law repelled