Santander UK PLC v R.A. Legal Solicitors [2014] EWCA Civ 183
June 2014 #140Abbey National Building Society (now Santander UK PLC) (A) agreed to lend £150,000 to an individual (V) for the purpose of purchasing a property subject to taking a first legal charge. RA Legal Solicitors (R) conducted the conveyancing, acting for both V and A. The vendor’s solicitors (S) were a real firm but acted dishonestly, falsely representing that they acted for the vendor. On 17 July 2009 A transferred £150,000 (plus fees) to RA’s bank account. S notified an account to which the completion monies should be sent and on 28 July 2009 S purported to exchange and complete and RA arrang...
HMRC v Lord Howard of Henderskelfe (dec’d) [2014] EWCA Civ 278
June 2014 #140Lord Howard of Henderskelfe was the owner of a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds portraying a South Sea Islander called Omai. When he died on 27 November 1984, the painting devolved to the respondents as part of his estate and, eventually, they sold it at Sotheby’s on 29 November 2001 for £9.4m which, after deduction of commission and value added tax, represented a substantial gain over the value of the painting at the date of death. Ordinarily, the gain would be chargeable to capital gains tax and, initially, it was classified as such in the respondents’ trust and estate retur...
Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763
April 2014 #138The appellant (Jaci) and the respondent (Sunil) were sister and brother-in-law respectively. This case related to the beneficial ownership of a property which Sunil had identified as a business opportunity (for Sunil to run as a B&B). Due to Sunil’s poor credit rating, the property was purchased in Jaci’s name via a mortgage, also in her name. Both parties agreed that there was an express oral agreement between them as to the terms on which the property was bought and held. The terms of that agreement were disputed and each party argued that they owned the beneficial inte...
Buzzoni v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 1684
April 2014 #138On 5 June 1996 Mrs Kamhi purchased a lease (the headlease) of a flat in Knightsbridge, London. On 21 November 1997 Mrs Kamhi granted an underlease (the underlease) to Ovalap Nominees Ltd. The underlease was granted without rent or premium being payable. On the same day Mrs Kamhi created by deed a settlement. The trustee was Legis Trust Ltd and the trust property was the underlease. Ovalap entered into the underlease as bare nomiee for Legis Trust Ltd.
On 24 March 2004 Parkside (Knightsbridge) Residents Ltd then granted Mrs Kamhi a new lease over the flat commencing 1 April 2003. ...
Manchester City Council v G & ors [2011] EWCA Civ 939
April 2014 #138This is an appeal from a judgment of Baker J [2010] EWHC 3385 (Fam) making an award of costs at the conclusion of long-running proceedings in the Court of Protection. The costs related to an interim hearing lasting eight days from January through to March, and, following judgment on 26 March 2010 ([2010] EWHC 621 (Fam)), a further hearing on 6 May 2010. In respect of costs, the judge said:
‘In all the circumstances, I conclude that this is a case for departing from the general rule set out in r157 of the Court of Protection Rules, and I make an order in the follo...
Ham v Ham & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1301
March 2014 #137The respondents, who had been in a partnership together, were the owners of the land on which their farming business was carried on, together with buildings, live and dead stock, farm machinery and other assets. The accounts recorded that the business was financed by the balance standing to the credit of their capital account with the land recorded year after year at book value. The appellant was bought into the partnership by the respondents on 1 October 1997 and their respective rights and obligations were set out in a partnership deed dated 15 December 1997 (the agreement). The accoun...
Re Jewell; Fox & anr v Jewell & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1152
March 2014 #137A probate claim was brought in respect of the will of the aforesaid deceased for testamentary incapacity; want of knowledge and approval; rectification; a kind of mutual wills claim and in proprietary estoppel. HHJ McCahill QC held that the parties should be required to deal with each of the wills issues in comparatively short statements, without going back over the decades of family history, which would be necessary for a proprietary estoppel claim. He said that he was persuaded that there was a proper role for a trial of preliminary issues, with the second trial, if necessary, ...
Ben Nevis (Holdings) Ltd & anr v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 578
January/February 2014 #136David King, a South African businessman, is the owner of Ben Nevis, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Following various hearings and appeals, Ben Nevis was found liable to the Commissioner for the South Africa Revenue Service (SARS) for taxes of Rand 2.6bn (approximately £222m) for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 tax years. In March 2011 judgment was entered against Ben Nevis in South Africa for this sum.
SARS alleged that Mr King transferred Ben Nevis’ assets to Metlinka Trading Ltd when he learned of the tax investigations and £7.8m was credited to a London ba...
Berger v Berger [2013] EWCA Civ 1305
January/February 2014 #136The appellant, who was in her mid-80s and in poor health, was the widow of the deceased who had died on 26 June 2005. Both parties had children by previous marriages, and were together for 36 years. The deceased’s estate totalled approximately £7.5m and consisted of a large matrimonial home in Surrey, a half share in a property in Arizona, three properties in London and a controlling holding of shares in a property development company. By his last will (the will) the deceased, after appointing the appellant and his two sons to be executors and trustees, gave his share in the property in ...
Sharma v Sharma & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1287
January/February 2014 #136In April 2003 qualified dentist Anushika Sharma acquired her first dental practice. In January 2007 she acquired a second practice and in July 2007 she was provided with an opportunity to purchase a third. This opportunity prompted a family meeting to discuss Anushika’s expanding empire. Jagesh Sharma (Sunny), Keshbala Sharma and Rajesh Sharma (Anushika’s then husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively) and Anushika were in attendance. During this meeting it was determined that a company (ADC Ltd) would be set up to purchase the third practice rather than Anushika doing this ...