Gibson v. Robb [2004] ScotSC 30 (26 April 2004)

Gibson v. Robb [2004] ScotSC 30 (26 April 2004)

The defender's averments are irrelevant and lacking in specification as to the existence and terms of a partnership. There is no sufficient basis to deprive the pursuer of his right as a pro indiviso proprietor to insist in an action of division and sale. Assertions of partnership without detailed averments of agreement, contributions, and terms are inadequate.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 30
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Graham Gibson; Defender and Respondent: Melanie Robb
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Pursuer entitled to insist in action of division and sale. Counterclaim craves 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5(c) dismissed pro tanto. Remaining pecuniary claims continued.
Legal Topics
Division and Sale of Property, Cohabitation and Property Rights, Existence of Partnership, Specification of Pleadings, Declarator, Counterclaim
Property Law Partnership Law Civil Procedure Division and Sale of Property Cohabitation and Property Rights Existence of Partnership Specification of Pleadings Declarator +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Gibson

Pursuer and Appellant

Melanie Robb

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to insist in an action of division and sale of jointly owned property
  2. 2 Whether the parties were in partnership such that the property is partnership property and not subject to division and sale
  3. 3 Whether the defender's pleadings are sufficiently specific to establish a partnership and bar division and sale

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's averments are irrelevant and lacking in specification as to the existence and terms of a partnership. There is no sufficient basis to deprive the pursuer of his right as a pro indiviso proprietor to insist in an action of division and sale. Assertions of partnership without detailed averments of agreement, contributions, and terms are inadequate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Pursuer entitled to insist in action of division and sale. Counterclaim craves 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5(c) dismissed pro tanto. Remaining pecuniary claims continued.

Orders

  • Closed record opened and amended as specified.
  • Appeal allowed.