A judge has cleared Ally McCoist of having to pay part of a £244,000 claim brought by an insurance company over his son’s dangerous driving.

Lord Menzies concluded on Tuesday that his child Argyll should settle the sum which Aviva sued for following the December 2016 incident involving the younger McCoist.

The Court of Session had previously heard lawyers for the firm say that Ally, 60, failed to stop uninsured Argyll from driving an Audi A1 which struck Stephan Murdoch in Bishopton, Renfrewshire, in December 2016.

Argyll later pleaded guilty to driving without insurance and causing serious injury to Mr Murdoch by driving dangerously in a high speed hit and run. The insurers believed that Ally didn’t do enough to stop Argyll from driving and that he and his son should be liable to pay the £244,000 bill which Aviva incurred from paying Mr Murdoch compensation.

However, in a written judgment issued by the court on Tuesday, judge Lord Menzies cleared Ally of having to pay the bill with Argyll. - the second defender Lord Menzies ruled that Aviva failed to prove that Ally - described as the first defender permitted Argyll - described as the second defender - to drive the car. The judge concluded that this meant that his son should be solely liable for the claim.

In the judgement, Lord Menzies wrote that he found Ally - who gave evidence earlier this year - to be a “credible and generally reliable witness who was doing his best to assist the court”.

However, he said that Argyll wasn’t an “impressive witness” and that he wasn’t impressed by his “demeanour” when giving evidence in the case.

Lord Menzies wrote about Ally: “He gave his evidence in a clear and restrained manner, without exaggeration, and I was impressed by his demeanour as a witness.

“I did not find Argyll McCoist to be a credible or reliable witness, and I did not feel able to place any reliance on his evidence.

“I was not impressed by his demeanour when giving evidence, and he had a history of telling lies and engaging in deceitful behaviour.

“He was not an impressive witness.”

Aviva had taken Ally and Argyll to court because of what happened following the collision.

The papers stated that Ally had bought the car at the centre of the case and had it insured with Aviva.

The legal papers state that Ally was the only person covered by the insurance policy.

Argyll was able to drive the car as he obtained a policy with More Than which the firm later cancelled.

Documents tell of how Mr Murdoch raised a legal action against Aviva because they were the insurance company responsible for the Audi which struck him.

Mr Murdoch obtained a legal order which forced Aviva to pay out £200,000 to Mr Murdoch. The firm was also liable for £44,000 expenses.

Aviva raised the action against Ally and Argyll for the £244,000 which it paid out as a consequence of the action.

The insurance company believe that Ally should be liable for the cost as the policy for the Audi didn’t cover Argyll.

Lawyers for the firm also believe that Ally didn’t do enough to ensure his son couldn’t take charge of the vehicle.

Ally contested the action. He said that he took every measure he could to ensure that his son couldn’t drive the car.

During proceedings earlier this year, Ally told the court how his son ‘lied’ to his ex wife about being insured to drive the Audi.

Ally said he took a set of keys for the car from Argyll and repeatedly told him verbally that he wasn’t legally entitled to continue driving it.

Ally also said he sent Argyll an email telling him that he couldn’t drive the car.

The football commentator also told the court that he sent an email to his ex wife Allison telling her that his son couldn’t drive the car.

The court heard how Ally had given the car to Argyll for his use it was kept at a house in Bishopton, Renfrewshire, where he stayed with his mum.

When Aviva’s lawyer Nick Ellis asked Ally how Argyll was able to drive the car despite these measures. the football pundit replied by saying that Argyll told Allison that he was covered.

He added: “He didn’t tell his mother the truth and he told her he had insurance or had arranged insurance.”

Argyll McCoist told the court that he was “under strict instruction not drive the car.”

He also described what happened after he struck Mr Murdoch. He said: “I drove off. I drove home and the police came.”

When asked why he left the accident scene, Argyll replied: “Sheer panic.”

Ally’s lawyer Alan Cowan, said the case against his client should be thrown out.

Mr Cowan said Ally told his son that he was not allowed to use the car and if that was established that was "determinative" of the case.

Nick Ellis KC, for the insurers, said that the "use of the car was permitted" by McCoist and he should be held liable after the vehicle and its keys were made available to the son.

In his written judgment, Lord Menzies didn’t uphold the submissions made to him by Aviva.

He wrote: “If the test for liability had been that Mr McCoist failed to take all reasonable steps to see to it that Argyll did not drive the car, I consider that he would have failed that test.

“But that is not the test. I can find nothing in the evidence which comes up to the statutory test of permitting.

“Nothing which happened between July 2016 and December 2016 is enough to give rise to the inference that Mr McCoist had withdrawn or relaxed his repeated express prohibition on Argyll driving the car.

“Nothing suggests that Mr McCoist had changed his mind and permitted Argyll to drive the car.

“The pursuers have therefore failed to meet the statutory test for imposing liability on Mr McCoist”

Lord Menzies said that Argyll should be held solely responsible for paying the claim.

He wrote: “I shall grant decree in favour of the pursuers against the second defender for payment of the sum of £244,000 with interest thereon at 8% from the date of citation until payment.”

The judgement tells of how Argyll McCoist was legally represented until May 2 2023. 

Lord Menzies wrote that on May 2 2023, a document was submitted to the court which stated that Argyll was “repelling” his defences to the action - and that he agreed that an order for damages should be made against him. 

However, Aviva’s lawyers wanted the court to rule “jointly” against Ally and Argyll and Nick Ellis KC, the insurer’s lawyer, pursued the action against both McCoists. 

Lord Menzies wrote: “I shall therefore sustain the second and third pleas-in-law for the first defender, repel the pursuer’s first plea-in-law insofar as directed against the first defender, and assoilzie the first defender from the conclusions of the summons. 

“The second defender has withdrawn his defences to the action, and a minute (number 21 of process) has been lodged on his behalf consenting to decree being granted against him in terms of the conclusions of the summons. “On the basis of all the evidence before me it is appropriate that I should accede to this minute.”