DAVID O'NEIL AGAINST JOHN O'NEIL AND MICHAEL O'NEIL [2017] ScotSC 40 (06 July 2017)

DAVID O'NEIL AGAINST JOHN O'NEIL AND MICHAEL O'NEIL [2017] ScotSC 40 (06 July 2017)

The pursuer's pleadings failed to set out a relevant and specific basis for reduction of the disposition on grounds of undue influence or facility and circumvention. There were no sufficient averments of trust, dominance, or abuse by the defenders, nor of mental facility or circumvention affecting Mrs O'Neil at the relevant time. The case was based on inference rather than fact, and thus had no real prospect of success even if all averments were proved.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 40
Parties
Pursuer: David O'Neil; First Defender: John O'Neil; Second Defender: Michael O'Neil
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Reduction of Disposition (property Transfer) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Decision on Defenders' Pleas in Law
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Reduction of Disposition, Undue Influence, Facility and Circumvention, Title and Interest to Sue, Lesion, Unjust Enrichment
Succession Law Property Law Civil Procedure Reduction of Disposition Undue Influence Facility and Circumvention Title and Interest to Sue Lesion +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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David O'Neil

Pursuer

John O'Neil

First Defender

Michael O'Neil

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Reduction of Disposition (property Transfer) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification, Decision on Defenders' Pleas in Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer has title and interest to sue for reduction of the disposition transferring property to the defenders
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to support claims of undue influence or facility and circumvention

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings failed to set out a relevant and specific basis for reduction of the disposition on grounds of undue influence or facility and circumvention. There were no sufficient averments of trust, dominance, or abuse by the defenders, nor of mental facility or circumvention affecting Mrs O'Neil at the relevant time. The case was based on inference rather than fact, and thus had no real prospect of success even if all averments were proved.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Repels defenders’ third plea in law
  • Upholds defenders’ fifth plea in law (to relevancy and specification)