RBC Trustees (CI) Ltd & ors v Stubbs & ors [2018] WTLR 1399

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2018 #170

The claim was brought to rectify two deeds of revocation and appointment made in 2008 and 2014, or alternatively to rescind them on the grounds of mistake.

Each of the settlor’s adult children had an interest in possession in a one sixth share of the trust fund. In 2004, in order to ensure that no inheritance tax was payable upon their one sixth share of the trust fund as a result of their deaths, the trustees appointed successive life interests for the spouses of two of these children, Michael and Joanna. Unfortunately, both Michael and Joanna’s marriages ended in divorce. The tr...

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...

Vaughan-Jones & anr v Vaughan-Jones & ors [2015] EWHC 1086 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2015 #152

The claimants were the executors of the will of the deceased dated 8 September 2000 whereby his residuary estate passed to his widow and three sons in equal shares absolutely. The first defendant was the deceased’s widow and the first claimant and second and third defendants were his sons.

Under the will, inheritance tax would be payable on the estate in respect of land and farming assets which did not qualify for agricultural property or business property relief on the three quarters of the residuary estate which had passed to the deceased’s sons. The beneficiaries decided that t...

Giles v Royal National Institute for the Blind & Ors [2014] EWHC 1373 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

The claimant claimed as the administratrix of the estate of Ellen Bolton (Ellen) for rectification of a deed of variation by which she had purported to vary the will of Hilda Bolton (Hilda).

Hilda had died on 6 February 2006. Her sister, Ellen, died on 11 September 2007. By her last will Hilda had benefited Ellen in two respects: as the beneficiary of a specific devise of a particular freehold property (the property) at clause 2(a) of the will and also as the sole residuary beneficiary under clause 5 of the will. As Ellen survived Hilda these gifts took effect. The gifts were char...

Oatley & ors v Oatley Powney & ors [2014] EWHC 1956 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2014 #143

In January 1995 Mr Donald Oatley, his wife Mrs Patricia Oatley, their three sons Andrew, Martin and Michael (the three claimants), and a solicitor, Mr Boyd, signed a deed of settlement. The beneficiaries were the spouses and issue of the claimants. Mrs Oatley died in 2002. Mr Oatley contracted cancer in 2006 and died in January 2007.

The Oatleys own a farming company with 4,333 shares owned by each claimant and 13,001 by the settlement. In 1985 Mr and Mrs Oatley created two discretionary trusts for some of their shares of the company, with the beneficiaries being their issue and ...

Kevern v Ayres & anr [2014] EWHC 165 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | April 2014 #138

Raymond Ayres deceased died intestate on 4 June 2008. The claimant is the deceased’s sister and the first defendant his wife.

As the deceased left no issue, his estate devolved according to the intestacy rules. Accordingly, his chattels and a statutory legacy of £200,000 went to the first defendant absolutely and the remainder of his estate was divided equally between the claimant and first defendant.

In these circumstances, the first defendant intimated a claim for reasonable financial provision from the deceased’s estate. Given the potential for post-death i...

Rectification: A case of doubt

Jennifer Seaman sets out the lessons to be learned from Re Hampel Discretionary Trust ‘It is important to get clear evidence as to the intentions of the parties to the trust deed or settlement up to the date of the deed or settlement and at the time the deed or settlement was executed.’ The remedy …
This post is only available to members.

Re the Hampel Discretionary Trust 1999 [2012] EWHC 2395 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | October 2013 #133

The claimants purchased a property in Cornwall in 1999. Their intentions were to create a discretionary trust of which they were to be the initial trustees, in favour of a class of beneficiaries consisting of their children and grandchildren and any further person or class of person nominated by the trustees. It was also intended that they should both be excluded from any possibility of benefit under the trust for inheritance tax reasons. In particular, they were concerned that there should be no reservation of benefit within the meaning of s102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986...

Futter & anr v HMRC; Pitt & anr v HMRC [2013] WTLR 977

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...

AC v DC & ors [2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2013 #130

Mostyn J granted an application by the applicant (W) to set aside transactions pursuant to s37(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that had been made by the first respondent (H) on about 2 December 2010 by which H disposed of his 86.4% shareholding in D Holdings Limited (DH). None of the respondents opposed the application. There was an issue whether or not the effect of the order operated retrospectively for all purposes, including fiscal purposes. Judgment was reserved and further written submissions were invited to determine whether the order setting aside the transact...