Tang v Tang
 FACV No.9 of 2016

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2018 #173

T died intestate. D1, one of the administrators of T’s estate, purchased a property using estate funds to cover around 40% of the purchase price, without informing P, one of the beneficiaries of the estate. Soon after completion of the purchase, D1 repaid the money to the estate, with interest at a rate that he selected, labelling the transaction as a loan. Later, when the property’s value had increased, P became aware of D1’s actions and brought proceedings to recover the profit made by him.


Held


D1 was a fiduciary who had made a profit by the application of his principa...

Fiduciary Duties: Staying virtuous

A recent Privy Council case indicates how the court will determine remedies and damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Joseph de Lacey explains ‘The case shows the flexibility of the concept of constructive trusts, and how they can be and are used to protect those to whom fiduciary duties are owed.’ On 27 March 2017 …
This post is only available to members.

Akita Holdings v Turks and Caicos Islands [2017] UKPC 7

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

Mr H was a ‘belonger’ (a citizen of the Turks and Caicos Islands) and appointed as a government minister in 2003, remaining in government until 2008. There was a policy entitling a belonger to apply for a conditional purchase lease over Crown Land subject to certain conditions which, if met, entitled the belonger to purchase the freehold title at a discounted rate, in this case of 50% of the open market value.

In 2004, Mr H applied for a lease and in setting the sale price the government relied on a 1998 valuation of the land resulting in a discounted price of $75,200...

O’Keefe v Caner [2017] EWHC 1105 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

This was a trial of the preliminary issue of whether claims made by the joint liquidators of two Jersey-incorporated companies against the respondents were time-barred as a matter of Jersey law.

In the proceedings, the applicants claimed that between 10 April 2007 and 10 June 2008 payments were made of €16m and €18m from ‘Level One’ and ‘Special Opportunity’ respectively, to or for the benefit of the first respondent or companies owned beneficially by him. Those payments were claimed not to have been made in good faith for a legitimate commercial purpose of...

Easingwood v Cockroft & ors 2013 BCCA 182

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | December 2016 #165

Reginald Easingwood (Reginald) was married to Kathleen Easingwood (Kathleen) from 1983. He had four children by his first wife, who had died in 1976. In April 2001, Reginald executed an enduring power of attorney in favour of his two children acting together. Three years later, in March 2004, Reginald made a will. Under that will, Kathleen was to have an entitlement to income in a fund of $525,000 (plus adjustment for each year), which upon her death would be divided between his children, his step children, and his grandchildren. He also gave his wife a life interest in the matrimonial h...

Novoship (UK) Limited & ors v Nikitin & ors [2014] EWCA Civ 908

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | November 2014 #144

Mr Mikhaylyuk (M), a manager for the first respondent, NOUK, with responsibility for negotiating the charters of vessels owned by companies within the Novoship group, the remaining respondents, owed fiduciary duties to all the respondents. M had arranged a series of schemes by which he defrauded his principals and enriched himself and others by the payment of bribes given to him by those who chartered his principals’ vessels. These schemes included one concerning vessels chartered to companies owned and controlled by Mr Ruperti (R) which R then sub-chartered at substantially higher rates...

FHR European Ventures LLP & ors v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2014 #142

The claimants engaged Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar) to act as their agent in negotiating the purchase by FHR European Ventures LLP of the issued share capital of Monte Carlo Grand Hotel SAM (which owned a long leasehold interest in the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel) from Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd (vendor). As such an agent, Cedar owed a fiduciary duty to the claimants, notwithstanding which it entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement with the vendor to provide for the payment of a €10m fee following completion – the vendor was paid €211.5m when the purchase was completed on 2...

Fiduciary Duties: Rigour at all times

Pennyfeathers underscores the stringency of directors’ duties and indicates when the court will lift the corporate veil to provide a remedy for breach. Nicholas Broomfield explains ‘Lord Sumption had affirmed a limited power of the court to pierce the corporate veil in circumstances where a party was abusing corporate personality to evade their obligations.’ The …
This post is only available to members.

FHR European Ventures & ors v Mankarious & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 17

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | May 2013 #129

The claimants (Investor Group) appealed from the decision of Simon J ([2011] EWHC 2308 (Ch)) that the Investor Group was entitled to a personal, but not a proprietary, remedy against Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar). There was no appeal from Simon J’s decision that Cedar was liable to account in equity to the Investor Group.

Monte Carlo Grand Hotel in Monaco was owned by Monte Carlo Hotel SAM, a Monegasque company. The company’s share capital was owned by Monte Carlo Grand Hotel Ltd, a BVI company. In September 2004, the BVI company was interested in se...

Company Law: Doing your duty

Nicola Bridge and Felicity Crowe assess the impact of directors’ duties ‘Since the codification of the common law and equitable directors duties in the Companies Act 2006 (the Act), it is much easier for directors to identify the duties that they owe the company.’ Directors are appointed by shareholders to manage the business and affairs …
This post is only available to members.