Gillespie v Gillespie & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_188 (18 November 2011)

Gillespie v Gillespie & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSOH_188 (18 November 2011)

The court found that, despite informal family business practices and the pursuer's belief, there was insufficient evidence of a partnership agreement regarding Ballochney West. Payments made by Piula Holding Incorporated to the pursuer were not proven to be a share of partnership profits but rather loans or gifts. The pursuer was not entitled to a legal share of the proceeds from the sale of Ballochney West.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_188
Parties
Pursuer: James Stevenson Gillespie; Defender: Thomas Graham Gillespie; Defender: Allan Wilkinson Stanfield Gillespie; Defender: Thomas Gillespie; Defender: The Partnership of Thomas Graham Gillespie, Alan Wilkinson Stanfield Gillespie, James Stevenson Gillespie, Gary Stanfield Gillespie and Thomas Gillespie; Defender: Piula Holding Incorporated
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Entitlement to Share in Profits, Family Business Arrangements, Ownership of Partnership Assets, Payment of Proceeds From Sale
Partnership Law Property Law Trusts Existence of Partnership Entitlement to Share in Profits Family Business Arrangements Ownership of Partnership Assets Payment of Proceeds From Sale

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Stevenson Gillespie

Pursuer

Thomas Graham Gillespie

Defender

Allan Wilkinson Stanfield Gillespie

Defender

Thomas Gillespie

Defender

The Partnership of Thomas Graham Gillespie, Alan Wilkinson Stanfield Gillespie, James Stevenson Gillespie, Gary Stanfield Gillespie and Thomas Gillespie

Defender

Piula Holding Incorporated

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the Gillespie brothers and cousin regarding Ballochney West
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was entitled to a share of profits from the sale of Ballochney West
  3. 3 Whether payments made constituted a share of partnership profits or loans

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite informal family business practices and the pursuer's belief, there was insufficient evidence of a partnership agreement regarding Ballochney West. Payments made by Piula Holding Incorporated to the pursuer were not proven to be a share of partnership profits but rather loans or gifts. The pursuer was not entitled to a legal share of the proceeds from the sale of Ballochney West.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed