Bhaur & ors v Equity First Trustees (Nevis) Ltd & ors [2023] WTLR 851

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2023 #192

In March 2007 Safe Investments Management UK (Safe), an unlimited company, transferred its shares in Gooch Investment (Gooch) to Equity Trust (BVI) Ltd, a trust company (2007 transfer), to be held on the terms of a settlement for the benefit of qualifying employees of Safe (First Staff Remuneration Trust). This transfer followed the transfer of interests in UK business assets (the estate) from the first and second appellants (Mr and Mrs Bhaur) to Safe and from Safe to its subsidiary Gooch. All these transfers took place as part of a tax scheme (scheme) promoted by Mr O’Toole, who operate...

Offshore: Deed of gift set aside on account of a fundamental mistake

Royal Court of Jersey case Re B & C clarifies the principles for setting aside a disposition of assets into a nominee arrangement on the ground of donor’s mistake. Paul Matthams explains In applying the relevant test, it was still a requirement for the court to be satisfied that the donor or settlor would not …
This post is only available to members.

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

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

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...

Trustees: Mistaken loyalty

Those taking on a trusteeship must be fully informed. Graeme Kleiner, Hugh Gunson and Thomas Watts discuss Mackay, which develops the grounds on which such appointments can be set aside The claimant’s acceptance of her appointment could be severed from the DORA without offending the rule against partial rescission and without operating unfairly on any …
This post is only available to members.

Smith & anr v Stanley & ors [2020] WTLR 1059

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2020 #180

The testator died in March 2015. By his last will of 14 March 2015 (the will) the testator gave the sum of £4.2m (the legacy fund) to his trustees to be held upon trust to pay the income to his widow for life, subject to an overriding power of appointment in clause 4 of the will for the benefit of a class of discretionary beneficiaries including the testator’s sister. The testator left a letter of wishes for his trustees which indicated how he wanted his estate to be shared between the various members of the discretionary class. By clause 19 of the will the statutory power of advancement...

Hartogs v Sequent [2020] WTLR 505

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2020 #179

The first defendant was trustee of two trusts established by the claimant and named The Milky Way Settlement Trust (Milky Way) and the Mercurius Settlement (Mercurius). Each of the second and third defendants was a company wholly owned by the first defendant as trustee. The trusts were established by the claimant following estate planning advice given to him by professional advisers at Attendus Trust Company AG (Attendus).

Milky Way was part of an offshore trust structure, established in 2009 by the claimant to acquire and hold property in England for the occupation of the claiman...

Trustees and mistake: Where are we now?

Laura Abbott reviews recent case law to discern current attitudes towards rectifying a genuine mistake ‘If a trustee takes advice which later proves to be incorrect, Hastings-Bass is unlikely to relieve the trust of the financial consequences, but the broadened rule of mistake may (in some limited cases) serve to do so, depending on the …
This post is only available to members.

Trustees: Back on the right course?

Marilyn McKeever discusses the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Futter v Futter and Pitt v Holt ‘The Hastings-Bass jurisdiction applies where the trustee or other person has failed to take into account any relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations and would not have taken the action they did but for that …
This post is only available to members.