A Scottish football club has come out on top in court after a former director battled for his loans to be repaid.

Livingston Football Club Limited was taken to court by former director Gerard Nixon who made a number of loans to the club, from both himself and by companies owned and directed by him, totaling at £215,367.48 prior to and after the club’s exit from administration in 2010.

Mr Nixon believes the repayment was repayable on demand whereas the club argued it had agreed to make the repayment when it was able to.

Livingston FC was in administration between February 2004 and May 2005 but by 2009 it was once again where it was in financial difficulty over debts owed to West Lothian Council.

As a fan of Livingston FC, one of Mr Nixon’s companies had previously loaned the sum of £92,700 in 2007, wanting to participate along with others to save the club.

In 2009, Mr Nixon was approached by Mr Gordon McDougall, an individual with experience in managing football clubs, and the two worked together to prepare a bid for the club; this £250,000 bid was rejected.

A second bid of £500,000 was put together with a group of investors including Mr Nixon, who contributed £100,000, which was successful, where Mr Nixon and Mr McDougall then ran the club from day to day.

During 2011 and 2012, Mr Nixon loaned more money to the club but the financial situation failed to improve and eventually he was voted off the board.

The underlying issue in this case is with the common ground that where two parties have entered into a contract of loan, the sum loaned is repayable on demand in the absence of any alternative agreement, however parties can agree to defer repayment until the borrower is able to repay.

Presiding over the case, Lord Tyre stated: “I hold that the pursuer has failed to prove that he is entitled to repayment on demand of the sums loaned to LFC by him or by companies under his control.”

The judge explained that Livingston FC had a subsidiary argument that in any event Mr Nixon was entitled to recover only those loans made by him personally  but that there was "no direct evidence that advances by the pursuer’s companies were properly to be treated as advances by him as an individual.”

“It follows that if I had found in favour of the pursuer on the principal issue, I would have found him entitled to repayment of the total sum of £215,367.48 agreed to have been advanced to LFC by the pursuer or by one or other of his companies.

“In the event, however, I shall repel the pursuer’s pleas in law, sustain the defender’s second plea in law, and grant decree of absolvitor, reserving all questions of expenses,” Lord Tyre concluded.