Surrogacy: Welfare first

Jeremy Ford reviews recent developments and proposed reforms to the law relating to surrogacy ‘The only governing principle remains the paramountcy of the child’s welfare with particular consideration to be given to the part each adult can play in the child’s life.’ While litigated surrogacy arrangements remain relatively rare, case law all too often reflects …
This post is only available to members.

Henderson & ors v HMRC [2017] WTLR 949

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Autumn 2017 #169

The appellants were the four children of Nicholas Henderson. They appealed under s42 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions Act) 2003 and s207 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, against HMRC determinations that they had all been domiciled in the UK since their birth. Strictly this appeal only related to tax years prior to 2008-2009, as a new statutory regime governs appeals relating to questions of domicile thereafter.

The parties were agreed that the appeals could be determined by reference to three questions:

  1. (1) Had Ian Hende...

J v U; U v J (No. 2) Domicile [2017] EWHC 449 (Fam)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2017 #168

The question before the court was, in the context of divorce proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent, whether either party to the marriage were domiciled in England and Wales. The respondent’s position was that neither were so domiciled, such that the divorce petition of the petitioner should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.

At the time of the proceedings the respondent was 72 years old. He was born in Mumbai, India. He moved to London with his family when he was 13 or 14. He studied in England, married and purchased a property in London, and pursued a ...

Sylvester v Sylvester HC11C00458

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

The deceased was born in Carriacou on 20 July 1925. She married her husband in 1953. He moved to London for work in the 1950s. She joined him in 1957. She died in London on 18 February 2008 aged 82, leaving a will dated 7 October 2007. The court had to decide whether she was domiciled in Carriacou or London at the date of her death in order to establish if it had jurisdiction to entertain a claim by the claimant pursuant to the Inheritance Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision out of the estate. The issue of domicile was ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue by an ord...

Domicile: On the back foot?

Re Foote highlights the importance of domicile in our multi-jurisdictional society, as Suzana Popovic-Montag and Stuart Clark relate The choice of changing one’s domicile must be voluntary, not dictated by business, debt or health. The 2011 decision Re Foote Estate, of the Alberta Court of Appeal, centres around the issue of domicile. Leave to appeal …
This post is only available to members.

Re Foote Estate [2011] ABCA 1

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2012 #122

Eldon Foote, the deceased (D) was born in Alberta and lived there for the first 43 years of his life. He married and had five children there. When he died in 2004, his estate was worth approximately $130m. He also controlled a charitable foundation worth approximately $80m and had other assets worth approximately $10m. The bulk of his assets were held through corporations in the British Virgin Islands, and he had some investments and investment properties in Norfolk Island and a cabin in Alberta. D had left Alberta in 1967 to start his business in Australia and, over the next three years...