Smith & anr v Michelmores Trust Corporation Ltd & ors [2021] WTLR 1051

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2021 #184

The testatrix (T), whose husband predeceased her, was survived by her four children, B1, B2, B3 and B4. T had appointed B3 and the partners of a solicitor firm as the executors of her will. She left the residue of her estate on trust to be divided into four equal shares: one for the benefit of each of B1, B2 and B3, and the fourth upon discretionary trusts, which included a wide power of appointment, for the benefit of B4 and his children and remoter issue. At the time of the hearing, B4 had three adult children and one minor grandchild. T died in 2010 and probate of her will was granted...

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...

A & ors v D & ors [2017] EWHC 2222 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

A & B were the current trustees of a settlement known as the Children’s Trust dated 21 March 2000. They were, with C, the current trustees of a settlement known as the M Trust dated 7 December 2004 (together the ‘Settlements’). A was the settlor of the settlements. D, E & F were his three minor children. G was joined in as a person appointed to represent a class of unborn beneficiaries. The settlements were drafted to qualify as accumulation and maintenance trusts within the requirements of Section 71 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (‘1984 Act’). Both made provision for a class o...

Holden-Hindley & ors v Holden-Hindley & anr [2013] EWHC 3053 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | March 2014 #137

The trustees of two family settlements applied to the court for authorisation of action that they proposed to take. David Holden-Hindley created the No 7 Settlement in 1973 for the benefit of his children, issue, his sister-in-law and her children and his sister Doreen Hindley and her children and issue. His brother Airlie set up a similar trust the No 9 Settlement in 1975 but only his children and those of his sister Doreen were beneficiaries. In both settlements illegitimate children were excluded.

In 1983 two deeds of appointments were made under the two settlements for the ben...

Barclays v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 810

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2011 #114

The trustees (the bank) appealed from the decision of Vos J to dismiss an appeal against a determination by HMRC. HMRC had decided that the residuary estates of Constance and William Poppleston were to be treated as if they were part of the estate of Edwin Poppleston (the son of Constance and William) because s89 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (the Act) required Edwin to be treated as if he had an interest in possession in each of them. If Edwin was not to be treated as if he had such interests in possession then HMRC was liable to repay the bank £158,963 with interest.

Edwin wa...

Trusts: Section 57 clarified

Shân Warnock-Smith QC examines the partitioning of ‘Freeston’ trusts in the recent case of Southgate v Sutton ‘The US beneficiaries and the trustees were put in a difficult position as a result of the decision at first instance: the beneficiaries because of their continued exposure to penal US tax and the trustees because they could …
This post is only available to members.