Continue reading "Conduct: Hoisted by their own petard?"
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: The straight and narrow?"
Continue reading "Illegality And Trusts: Public policy or rule of law?"
The claimant and first defendant were husband and wife and joint freehold owners of a property in the UK where they lived. Up until March 2006 the claimant and first defendant were treated as domiciled in South Africa. However, from 6 April 2006 they would be treated as domiciled in the UK for inheritance tax purposes. In November 2005 the claimant took advice on mitigating the consequences of being treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax. He was advised that his position would be improved if he placed the property into an interest in possession settlement.
...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...
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 ...