Webb v Webb [2020] WTLR 1461

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181

The appeal arose in a dispute between husband and wife about the matrimonial property available for division.

After Mr and Mrs Webb were married in 2005, Mr Webb established two family trusts for the purpose of acquiring land and other assets in the Cook Islands (the Arorangi Trust and the Webb Family Trust).

The Arorangi Trust was established with Mr Webb as sole trustee, and Mr Webb and his son Sebastian as the two beneficiaries. The deed provided for a consultant to assist the trustee and for who could remove the trustee, request early vesting of the property and consent...

Illegality And Trusts: The straight and narrow?

Patel v Mirza [2016] establishes a flexible approach towards the illegality defence. Gareth Keillor and Rosanna Pinker analyse the pros and cons ‘A flexible approach, which disposes of the automatic bar to relief if the claimant has relied on their own illegality, will provide new opportunities for claimants involved in illegality successfully to lodge claims.’ …
This post is only available to members.

Watts v Watts Claim no: HC02C02559

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2014 #145

The claimant Arthur Watts (Arthur) sued his brother James Watts (James) in respect of trust transactions in 1998.

In 1967 Geoffrey Watts, the father of Arthur and James, made a settlement in favour of his children and grandchildren. In 1976 this trust fund was split into separate trust funds for each of Geoffrey’s children. James was one of the trustees of Arthur’s trust fund. The main beneficiaries were Arthur in his lifetime and thereafter his legitimate children. Clause 4 allowed the trustees to pay all the capital to Arthur if they considered it to be to his advantage...

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 ...