McGraddie v McGraddie & Anor (Scotland)

Link copied
Case Copied 24 min read

    Summary


    Trinty Term
    [2013] UKSC 58
    On appeal from: [2012] CSIH 23

    JUDGMENT

    McGraddie (Appellant) v McGraddie (AP) and another (AP) (Respondents) (Scotland)
    before
    Lord Neuberger, President
    Lady Hale, Deputy President
    Lord Wilson
    Lord Reed
    Lord Hughes
    JUDGMENT GIVEN ON

    31 July 2013

    Heard on 10 July 2013
    Appellant
    Andrew Smith QC
    Jonathan Brown
    (Instructed by McClure Naismith LLP)
      Respondent
    The Lord Davidson of Glen Clova QC
    Eric Robertson
    (Instructed by Balfour & Manson)
         
        Respondent
    Richard Keen QC
    Stuart Buchanan
    (Instructed by HBM Sayers)
    LORD REED (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Hughes agree)
  1. In the sets of Session Cases in the Advocates Library, the volumes for 1947 fall open at Thomas v Thomas 1947 SC (HL) 45; [1947] AC 484, where one finds in the speech of Lord Thankerton at pp 54 and 487-488 what may be the most frequently cited of all judicial dicta in the Scottish courts:
  2. "(1) Where a question of fact has been tried by a judge without a jury, and there is no question of misdirection of himself by the judge, an appellate court which is disposed to come to a different conclusion on the printed evidence should not do so unless it is satisfied that any advantage enjoyed by the trial judge by reason of having seen and heard the witnesses could not be sufficient to explain or justify the trial judge's conclusion. (2) The appellate court may take the view that, without having seen or heard the witnesses, it is not in a position to come to any satisfactory conclusion on the printed evidence. (3) The appellate court, either because the reasons given by the trial judge are not satisfactory, or because it unmistakably so appears from the evidence, may be satisfied that he has not taken proper advantage of his having seen and heard the witnesses, and the matter will then become at large for the appellate court."
  3. The principles stated in Thomas v Thomas had, even then, long been settled law: the speech of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd 1919 SC (HL) 35, 36-37, where he said that an appellate court should intervene only it is satisfied that the judge was "plainly wrong", is almost equally familiar. Accordingly, as was said by Lord Greene MR in Yuill v Yuill [1945] P 15, 19, in a dictum which was cited with approval by Viscount Simon and Lord Du Parcq in Thomas at pp 48, 62-63, 486 and 493 respectively, and by Lord Hope of Craighead in Thomson v Kvaerner Govan Ltd [2003] UKHL 45; 2004 SC (HL) 1, para 17:
  4. "It can, of course, only be on the rarest occasions, and in circumstances where the appellate court is convinced by the plainest of considerations, that it would be justified in finding that the trial judge had formed a wrong opinion."
  5. The reasons justifying that approach are not limited to the fact, emphasised in Clarke and Thomas, that…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McGraddie v McGraddie & Anor (Scotland) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2013] UKSC 58
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AI summary not yet generated for this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.