Morton v Morton & anr WTLR(w) 2022-05

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Offshore: Making the most of mistake

Rebecca McNulty discusses two recent cases from the UK and Jersey courts that emphasise the importance of a complete evidence picture when establishing mistake If the court is to be persuaded that there has been a genuine mistake, it needs to be provided with all relevant correspondence and documents so that such an assessment can …
This post is only available to members.

JTC Employer Ser Trustees Ltd v Khadem [2022] WTLR 203

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186

Mr Khadem’s employer established a pension plan for him, with HMRC approval, which was tailored for employees who may retire abroad. On his retirement in 2004 he remained in England as his wife continued to work as a consultant and professor. As his wife approached her retirement they discussed where they should live and decided to move to the UAE, which Mr Khadem did in March 2018.

The claimant and Mr Khadem each took tax advice on 12 December 2018. It was to the effect that the UAE only provides a tax domicile certificate covering the period up to the date of the application for...

Re X Trusts [2022] WTLR 355

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186

On 23 October 2020 the Bermuda Supreme Court granted a Public Trustee v Cooper Category 2 application for a ‘blessing’ of the applicant trustees’ decision to develop preliminary proposals for the future administration of an apparently very valuable group of private trusts, referred to as ‘the X Trusts’. The preliminary proposals contemplated restructuring the X Trusts by way of an unequal division of the trust assets between two branches of the beneficiary family. One branch of the family supported these proposals, the other did not.

Implementation of the trustees’ propos...

Bhaur & ors v Equity First Trustees (Nevis) Ltd & ors WTLR(w) 2022-01

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Mazzoleni v Summerhill Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd [2021] WTLR 1409

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185

In 1994, by a series of trust deeds, Mrs Pesenti established four settlements in the Isle of Man known as the RR1, RR2, RR3 and RR4 Trusts, each of which was for the benefit of one of her children and his/her heirs. The RR2 Trust (the trust), which alone formed the subject of this case, took as its beneficiaries the appellant and her issue born before the perpetuity date, together with two named charities. The dispositive provisions of the trust required the trustees to hold the trust fund and its income on discretionary trusts for all or such one or more exclusively of the others or oth...

Mistake: Forgiven, but not rewritten

Oliver Auld reviews the scope of the Jersey courts to set aside a voluntary disposition or other transaction on the grounds of mistake While the court accepted that Art 47G gave it a flexible decision-making power to determine the extent to which a voidable exercise of power has effect, the court was not persuaded that …
This post is only available to members.

Dukeries Healthcare Ltd v Bay Trust International Ltd & ors [2021] WTLR 809

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2021 #184

The claims concerned various tax avoidance schemes that had been established as ‘Remuneration Trusts’ for the claimants by Baxendale Walker LLP. The claimants were a successful businessman, Mr Levack, and various businesses of which he was a director and/or shareholder. In each case, one of the claimants was the ‘founder’ of the relevant trust. The defendants were various corporate entities having had a role in the trusts, together with HMRC.

The claimants maintained that the Remuneration Trusts had been entered into on the basis that they would offer various tax benefits, and wou...

B v C & ors [2021] WTLR 1

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2021 #182

A was survived by C, his sister; H, with whom he had had a relationship; E and F, who were the daughters of A and H; B, with whom A had also had a relationship; and G, the son of A and B. C was one of the executors of A’s will. Each of A and C owned 50% of the shares in X Ltd (the company) and on A’s death C remained a director and was in control of the company. During A’s lifetime, a property (Property 1) was acquired in his name and remained so at his death.

There were three claims following A’s death: (1) H claimed to be the beneficial owner of Property 1 (the property claim); ...