v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs
 Neutral citation: [2018] EWCA Civ 31

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2018 #172

Facts


DS and IS were at all material times resident in the UK for tax purposes and were beneficially entitled to the income from MOH, an English property development company of which they were the shareholders and directors. On advice, they used a tax avoidance scheme that took advantage of the provisions of the 1955 UK-Isle of Man double tax treaty (DTT). These provisions exempted the industrial or commercial profits of an Isle of Man (IOM) enterprise, which could include a partnership, from UK tax unless it was engaged in trade or business in the UK through a permanent establis...

Abuse of process: Hot under the collar

Kate Raybould assesses an application to strike out a claim ‘The assessment of the claimant‘s alleged procedural failures is arguably generous, and it is difficult to imagine the court would have reached the same conclusion had the claimant been represented.‘ The High Court has recently given its judgment and a helpful review of the authorities …
This post is only available to members.

Financial provision: One step at a time

Clare Williams and Holly Tootill review the circumstances in which a two-stage process to determine assets, and then entitlement, will be appropriate ‘Having a hearing to decide the extent of the asset base, and another hearing to conclude a financial order, is unusual but perhaps inevitable when the parties are very far apart on what …
This post is only available to members.

High Commissioner for Pakistan in the United Kingdom v Prince Mukkaram Jah, His Exalted Highness the 8th Nizam of Hyderabad [2016] EWHC 1465 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2016 #165

The underlying claim concerned monies deposited in a new bank account with the National Westminster Bank (the bank) in the name of Mr Rahimtoola, the High Commissioner for Pakistan in London between 16 and 20 September 1948 (the Fund). The monies deposited had belonged to the state of Hyderabad/the 7th Nizam (Hyderabad’s absolute monarch at the time). The state of Hyderabad had been annexed to India between 13 and 18 September 2016. The underlying claim had been brought by Pakistan against the bank. A number of other defendants claiming an interest in the fund had been joined. Cons...

Settlement: An air of finality

David Sawtell reviews the potential pitfalls and benefits of settlement agreements ‘The House of Lords accepted that a party may, in a compromise agreement supported by valuable consideration, agree to release claims or rights of which they are unaware and of which they could not be aware, if appropriate language is used to make plain …
This post is only available to members.

Barnett v Creggy [2014] EWHC 3080 (Ch)

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

This was a claim for an account and associated enquiries and for equitable compensation brought by Jeffrey and Peter Barnett (the claimants) against their former solicitor Stuart Creggy (Mr Creggy). The claimants were entrepreneurs in the restaurant business. Mr Creggy’s practice consisted of establishing offshore companies for clients and providing services to those clients in respect of depositing, investing and withdrawing funds held in those companies. Mr Creggy ceased to be a solicitor in 1998, but continued to provide those services until 2002.

The claimants were clien...

Professional Negligence: Valuable lessons

Alexandra Anderson examines the decision in Titan v Colliers relating to an SPV which sought to bring a claim against a valuer ‘The judge’s analysis was based on the conclusion that the contractual structure agreed between the noteholders and Titan in the securitisation documents allocated the bringing of any claim to Titan.’On 3 November 2015, …
This post is only available to members.

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & anr v Pugachev & ors [2014] EWHC 3547 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2015 #147

This concerned an application by the trustees of five discretionary trusts of which the defendant was a discretionary object. The defendant was the founder of the first claimant, a Russian bank (the bank). The bank had subsequently gone into administration and the second claimant, a Russian state organisation (the DIA), had been appointed as its liquidator. The DIA sought to enforce various claims against the defendant in Russian and English proceedings. The sums involved were in the order of $2.2bn.

At a hearing before Henderson J on 11 July 2014 a freezing order was made agains...

Practice: If at first you don’t succeed, don’t try again?

Robert Salis and David Sawtell review estoppel and res judicata ‘What the courts are concerned with when considering cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel is a narrower decision based on a substantive rule of law.’ Issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel and res judicata are often discussed but rarely defined. To a defendant, they …
This post is only available to members.