Case: Re S (a child) (identification: restrictions on publication) [2004] UKHL 47

Dukeries Healthcare Ltd v Bay Trust International Ltd & ors [2021] WTLR 809

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...

MN v OP & ors [2019] WTLR 941

In a claim for the approval of an arrangement varying a trust under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (the 1958 Act), an application was made for an anonymity order restricting the naming of the parties and access to the court file relating to the claim and the publication of certain information. The judge dismissed the application but gave permission for an appeal. The appellant, who brought the claim, was settlor of a settlement (the settlement), which comprised very valuable assets divided into several funds, some of which were held on discretionary trusts and others ...

V v T & anr [2014] EWHC 3432 (Ch)

The claimant was the settlor of three trusts and applied, under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, for approval of similar arrangements for the benefit of minor beneficiaries under the trust and for future, yet unborn, beneficiaries under the trust.

The principal defendants were the trustees, the adult beneficiaries (who consented to the proposed arrangements) and the minor beneficiaries, acting through their litigation friend.

Before the hearing the parties had contact Chancery Listing and obtained agreement that the cases would be listed for hearing with initials ...

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

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...