WILSON, ADELINE MARGARET AGAINST PETER WATKINS AND ANOTHER [2019] ScotCS CSOH_44 (12 June 2019)

WILSON, ADELINE MARGARET AGAINST PETER WATKINS AND ANOTHER [2019] ScotCS CSOH_44 (12 June 2019)

The pursuer's pleadings did not aver sufficient primary facts to establish a relationship of dominance or ascendant influence, specific acts of undue influence, or lack of independent advice. Without such averments, even if all facts pled were proved, the pursuer could not succeed in reduction of the deeds on the ground of undue influence. Accordingly, the action was dismissed in respect of the first and second conclusions.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_44
Parties
Pursuer: Adeline Margaret Wilson; First Defender: Peter Watkins; Second Defender: Second Defender (unnamed, daughter of pursuer)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Reduction and Removal / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Action dismissed in respect of first and second conclusions (reduction of disposition and agreement); case to be brought out by order regarding counterclaim; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Reduction of Deeds, Fiduciary Relationships, Restitution, Counterclaim for Enrichment
Property Law Contract Law Family Law Undue Influence Reduction of Deeds Fiduciary Relationships Restitution Counterclaim for Enrichment

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adeline Margaret Wilson

Pursuer

Peter Watkins

First Defender

Second Defender (unnamed, daughter of pursuer)

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Reduction and Removal / Procedure Roll Debate (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficient to entitle her to proof of reduction of a disposition and agreement on the ground of undue influence
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the transaction support a case of undue influence under Scots law

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings did not aver sufficient primary facts to establish a relationship of dominance or ascendant influence, specific acts of undue influence, or lack of independent advice. Without such averments, even if all facts pled were proved, the pursuer could not succeed in reduction of the deeds on the ground of undue influence. Accordingly, the action was dismissed in respect of the first and second conclusions.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed in respect of first and second conclusions (reduction of disposition and agreement); case to be brought out by order regarding counterclaim; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Uphold defenders’ first plea-in-law and dismiss the action in so far as it relates to the first and second conclusions of the summons.
  • Case to be brought out by order to address the counterclaim.