The Donkey Sanctuary & ors v Bacchus & ors [2020] WTLR 1447

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2020 #181

Leonard Dunthorn (Mr Dunthorn) died in 2018, leaving a will pursuant to which the residue of his estate, after a pecuniary legacy, was to pass to his sister Ruby Watts (Mrs Watts), provided she survived him by 28 days. If she did not do so, the residue was to be divided between ten named charities. Mrs Watts survived Mr Dunthorn by more than 28 days and became entitled to his residue. She in turn passed away in 2019, leaving a will which left her residue (after a number of pecuniary legacies) to 11 named charities, the first ten of which were those charities that had been named in Mr Dun...

Lewis v Tamplin [2018] EWHC 777 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2018 #171

The claimants/applicants brought a part 8 claim, as beneficiaries of a trust of land in Glamorgan known as the Tamplin trust, for disclosure of documents and information by the defendant/respondent trustees. This claim was founded on the basis that the trustees owe a duty to account to the beneficiaries for their stewardship of the trust assets. They also made an application for pre-action disclosure; the court gave judgment on both matters.

The defendants opposed both the claim and the application on a number of grounds. Firstly, the beneficiaries had already received sufficient ...

Rangers [2017] UKSC 45

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

The appeal concerned a tax avoidance scheme by which employers paid remuneration to their employees through an employees’ remuneration trust in the hope that the scheme would avoid liability to income tax and Class 1 national insurance contributions. The question on appeal was whether an employee’s remuneration was taxable as their emoluments or earnings when it was paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.

The employing companies, including RFC, operated the tax avoidance scheme in the tax years between...

Re the Onorati Settlement [2013] JRC 182

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2015 #155

This was an application by two beneficiaries of the Onorati Settlement, a Jersey discretionary trust (the trust), to set aside a deed of appointment distributing the trust fund to them. The application was made under the so-called principle in Hastings-Bass on the basis that the trustee had failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account when exercising their discretion, namely the UK tax consequences of making the appointment. Their application was on the basis that the Respondent (the trustee) had failed to take adequate tax advice.


Futter & anr v HMRC; Pitt & anr v HMRC [2013] UKSC 26

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2013 #131

The first appeal concerned two settlements, made with non-resident trustees, by Mr Futter. Considerable ‘stockpiled’ gains were rolled up while the trusts were non-resident and, in exercise of the powers conferred by the trusts, new resident trustees were appointed and capital was distributed to Mr Futter and his children in the mistaken belief that the ‘stockpiled’ gains, which would be attributed to them, would be absorbed by allowable losses that had been realised, so that no liability to capital gains tax would arise. In advising as to the effect of s87 of the Taxation a...

Trustees: Unanticipated outcomes

Antoaneta Proctor outlines the facts and ramifications of Pitt & anor v Holt & anor ‘In Pitt & anor v Holt & anor Lloyd LJ reached a conclusion that what has become known as the rule in Hastings-Bass is actually not a correct statement of the law.’Can a receiver of a patient whose offices are …
This post is only available to members.

Trustees: Hastings-Bass overturned?

Marilyn McKeever looks at the implications for trustees and their advisers in the pivotal case Futter v Futter ‘The purpose of the rule in Hastings-Bass was to protect the beneficiaries, not the trustees. The effect of the new rule in Futter is to reduce that protection significantly.’In Futter & anor v Futter & ors [2011], …
This post is only available to members.