Gaul v Deerey & Ors [1999] ScotCS 194 (17 August 1999)

Gaul v Deerey & Ors [1999] ScotCS 194 (17 August 1999)

The pursuer's averments, though bare, are sufficient to entitle him to a proof before answer on both facility and circumvention and undue influence, as they allege a relationship of trust and confidence, vulnerability, and deliberate dishonest actings by the first defender leading to the codicil. The law does not require the relationship to fall within fixed categories, and the facts pled could establish the necessary elements for the remedies sought.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 194
Parties
Pursuer: Ian Gaul; Defenders: Frank Deerey and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Reduction of Testamentary Document / Procedure Roll (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed
Legal Topics
Facility and Circumvention, Undue Influence, Reduction of Testamentary Documents
Succession Law Civil Procedure Facility and Circumvention Undue Influence Reduction of Testamentary Documents

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Gaul

Pursuer

Frank Deerey and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Reduction of Testamentary Document / Procedure Roll (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments are sufficient to entitle him to proof before answer on the grounds of facility and circumvention and undue influence in relation to a codicil altering a will.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, though bare, are sufficient to entitle him to a proof before answer on both facility and circumvention and undue influence, as they allege a relationship of trust and confidence, vulnerability, and deliberate dishonest actings by the first defender leading to the codicil. The law does not require the relationship to fall within fixed categories, and the facts pled could establish the necessary elements for the remedies sought.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed

Orders

  • Allow proof before answer of all averments