Paula Butterworth analyses the impact of the Supreme Court decision Prest in a cohabitant case ‘It was accepted by the Court of Appeal that this was not a case in which there was scope to pierce the corporate veil, so as to identify the second defendant company with the first defendant.’ The Court of Appeal …
Continue reading "Cohabitants: Life after Prest"
This post is only available to members.
Rod Cowper examines recent approaches to the interpretation of guarantees ‘The only practical guidance that can be offered is that those having the benefit of a guarantee of a contract which is to be amended substantively ought to ensure that the guarantor is made aware of and consents expressly to the variations.’ Although judicial piercing …
Continue reading "Guarantees: Satisfaction guaranteed?"
This post is only available to members.
Prest emphasises that it is unfeasible for the Family Division to take a differing approach to other divisions when piercing the corporate veil. Suzanne Todd explains ‘The recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest has far-reaching effects, way beyond the boundaries of the Family Division.’ Most people are familiar with Jane …
Continue reading "Divorce And Trusts: Trusting Prest"
This post is only available to members.
Julian Bremner examines whether the decision in Thursfield v Thursfield makes it more likely or not that committal orders in family proceedings will be made ‘There is a perception in the profession that the courts are deeply reluctant to imprison a defaulting party for what can be seen as the “white collar crime” of ignoring …
Continue reading "Enforcement: Civil commitment"
This post is only available to members.
James Copson considers the implications and practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Prest ‘Respondents and companies will be looking for ways of rebutting the presumption of a resulting trust – as is clear from Prest the weight of evidence will vary from case to case.’At first glance the Supreme Court ruling in Prest …
Continue reading "Financial Provision: Open and shut case?"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2013 #131The appellant trustees appealed from a notice of determination dated 16 February 2010 whereby HMRC refused inheritance tax business property relief on the basis that immediately before the ten-year anniversary on 22 September 2007, none of the property comprised in the settlement was relevant business property for the purposes of s104 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA). HMRC contended that the business was excluded under s105(3) IHTA in that it consisted ‘mainly of… making or holding investments’.
The principal asset of the settleme...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2013 #131A post-nuptial settlement (being a Jersey discretionary trust) was created by a husband and wife in 1986. The trust owns a Liberian company, which in turn owns a UK company that owns two UK companies. The main company assets are two UK retirement villages. The beneficiaries included the husband and wife and two minor children.
During divorce proceedings the wife applied for a variation of the settlement.
Over the course of proceedings the trustees of the Jersey trust and the companies were all joined as parties. In both cases no application was made for joinder and no not...
