Pirie v. The Clydesdale Bank Plc& Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_51 (12 April 2005)

Pirie v. The Clydesdale Bank Plc& Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_51 (12 April 2005)

The pursuer's pleadings are defective and exiguous but contain sufficient averments of crucial facts to justify sending the case to proof against the second and third defenders; no relevant averments against the first defender, so action dismissed as against them.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_51
Parties
Pursuer: Ceria Pirie; First Defender: The Clydesdale Bank Plc; Second Defender: Elizabeth Pirie; Third Defender: Charles Pirie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Reduction of Testamentary Deed / Procedure Roll Debate on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Action dismissed against first defender; proof before answer allowed against second and third defenders.
Legal Topics
Facility and Circumvention, Undue Influence, Reduction of Testamentary Deeds
Succession Trusts and Estates Facility and Circumvention Undue Influence Reduction of Testamentary Deeds

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ceria Pirie

Pursuer

The Clydesdale Bank Plc

First Defender

Elizabeth Pirie

Second Defender

Charles Pirie

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Reduction of Testamentary Deed / Procedure Roll Debate on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trust Disposition and Settlement was procured by facility and circumvention
  2. 2 Whether the Trust Disposition and Settlement was procured by undue influence

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings are defective and exiguous but contain sufficient averments of crucial facts to justify sending the case to proof against the second and third defenders; no relevant averments against the first defender, so action dismissed as against them.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against first defender; proof before answer allowed against second and third defenders.

Orders

  • Sustain second plea-in-law for first defender and dismiss action against them.
  • Allow proof before answer with second and third defenders' pleas standing.