Angove’s PTY Limited v Bailey & anr [2016] UKSC 47

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2016 #163

A, an Australian winemaker, employed an English company called D&D as its agent and distributor in the UK. D&D bought wines from A in its own right and sold wines on A’s behalf pursuant to an agency and distribution agreement (the agreement). The agreement was terminable by either party on six months’ notice or by notice with immediate effect in a number of events including the appointment of an administrator or liquidator.

On 21 April 2012, D&D went into administration and on 10 July 2012 into creditors’ voluntary liquidation. On administration there...

Bellis v Challinor [2015] EWCA Civ 59

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2016 #156

The case concerned a property investment scheme relating to land at and around an airport known as Fairoaks (the Fairoaks scheme). The Fairoaks scheme was the last in a substantial series of schemes (the Albemarle schemes) which, prior to the Fairoaks scheme, were unregulated collective investment schemes promoted by Egan Lawson (later ECS after its takeover by Erinaceous Group PLC (Erinaceous)) involving investment through a single purpose vehicle (SPV). The underlying subject matter of each scheme consisted of either commercial or development property or a mixture of both. The schemes ...

Libertarian Investments Ltd v Hall FACV Nos 14 & 16 of 2012

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2015 #147

W and the defendant embarked on a project with the aim of acquiring a substantial interest in an English company, TSE, which started with the acquisition of 125,000 TSE shares in 2002 (the first tranche). In 2003 they attempted to make additional acquisitions of TSE shares, such attempts involving three of W’s companies, including the plaintiff. The overall scheme was that funds would be provided by one company, Assanzon, for the acquisition of shares for another company, Momentum, which were held for its beneficial owners which were principally the plaintiff company, Libertarian. The fu...

Patel v Mirza [2014] EWCA Civ 1047

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144

The appellant was a property dealer and the respondent was a foreign exchange broker, who had a personal spread-betting account with IG Index. In August 2009, a third party informed the appellant of a deal offered by the respondent that involved a bet on the movement in the value of shares in Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS). The defendant claimed to know people who sat in on meetings between the heads of RBS and officials from the government, and it was expected the Chancellor would make a public statement which would have an effect on the share price of RBS. Following an initial telephone ...

Trusts: In the commercial sphere

Jason Nickless describes how trusts were applied to resolve the dispute in Wise v Jimenez [2013] ‘Mr Jimenez gave a number of different accounts as to precisely how [the] moneys had been invested. After analysing the evidence, the court was satisfied that the purpose behind the investment of the moneys had not been fulfilled’. On …
This post is only available to members.

Patel v Mirza [2013] EWHC 1892 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2013 #135

The claimant (Mr Patel) became friends with Mr Georgiou in 2004. Mr Patel was introduced to the defendant (Mr Mirza) at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009 by Mr Georgiou, probably at one of the poker games Mr Georgiou hosted every Friday evening.

Mr Mirza was and is employed as a foreign exchange broker and also had a personal spread-betting account.

In August 2009 Mr Patel stated that he was approached by Mr Georgiou with a deal he had been offered by Mr Mirza – Mr Mirza would use his spread-betting account to bet on the movement of RBS shares and that Mr Mirza knew ...

Quistclose Trusts: Clear segregation

Lynsey Oakdene and Camilla Dalzell discuss the definition of a Quistclose trust and the circumstances in which a court will find that one exists, following Tuthill ‘A Quistclose trust arises in circumstances where a transferor transfers money to another with the intention that the money is to be used for a specific and exclusive purpose.’ …
This post is only available to members.

Gabriel v Little & ors [2012] EWHC 1193 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2013 #128

The claimant (Mr Gabriel) and the first defendant (Mr Little) were businessmen and erstwhile friends who had previously collaborated in respect to a project known as Southgate street development in Gloucester. The third defendant (High Tech), the entire share capital of which was owned by Mr Little, was the building contractor. The fourth defendant (BPE), a firm of solicitors engaged by Mr Gabriel, drafted a facility letter recording the terms upon which Mr Gabriel was prepared to make a contribution by way of loan to the cost of the development. In the event, Mr Gabriel was unable to ob...

Quistclose Trusts: Beware of importing principles of equity into commercial law

Jehan-Philippe Wood analyses Bieber v Teathers, which sheds new light on how a Quistclose trust is defined in the context of partnerships It is one thing to accept that a trust can exist alongside a contractual arrangement. It is quite another to try to reconcile competing arrangements.A Quistclose trust (the name derives from Barclays Bank …
This post is only available to members.

Bieber & ors v Teathers Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1466

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2013 #126

The defendant (Teathers) promoted a series of unregulated collective investment schemes intended to take advantage of tax reliefs available on investments in TV productions. UK tax payers were entitled to write down 100% of any expenditure on a film or TV production certified as a British Qualifying Film. The schemes had not proved successful. Many of the productions were commercial failures and a number of them had not been certified as British Qualifying Films and were illegible for the tax relief that was the rationale behind the schemes. The claimants argued that money invested in th...