Barnaby v Johnson [2020] WTLR 67

Spring 2020 #178

Mrs Maudlin Bascoe (T) died on 29 August 2015. Cs sought to prove a will dated 27 April 2005 (the 2005 will) naming them as executors. C1 was T’s son. C2 was T’s former solicitor and the draftsman of her wills from 1988 2005. D was T’s daughter. T also had two other children – a son, G, (who pre-deceased her) and a daughter, B (who died after T in 2017).

Under the 2005 will, D received a legacy of £100. There was an earlier will dated 25 October 1992 (the 1992 will) leaving D a legacy of £10,000 the validity of which D did not dispute at trial.

D challenged the 2005 will, a...

AB v CD [2019] EWHC 2323 (CH), [2019] EWHC 2324 (CH)

Winter 2019 #177

AB was a professional trustee of two discretionary trusts created by the late parents of D1, a Will Trust for the benefit of their issue, and a Grandchildren ‘s Trust for the benefit of their grandchildren (i.e. the four children of D1 and D3, and the two children of D1 ‘s late sister). D1, D2 and D3 were between them the other trustees of the trusts.

Three of the children of D1 and D3 had already received shares of the Grandchildren ‘s Trust, but the other three grandchildren had not. Another trust fund, comprising the proceeds of sale of a property intended by the settlors for D...

ABC v KJL [2019] EWHC 2416 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

The claimants were the trustees of a number of trusts relating to an English estate, including a fund created by an appointment in 1978 (the T fund). The claim was for rectification or alternatively rescission of a deed of appointment made in 2010 relating to a sub-fund of the T fund. The defendant was the beneficiary of the relevant sub-fund. He did not oppose the claim. HMRC were aware of the proceedings but chose not to take part other than to request that certain authorities be considered by the court.

In 1930, the settlor had settled property on a strict settlement which inc...

Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing LLP [2019] EWHC 1258 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

The claimants are beneficiaries of a number of Bahamian trusts; Taylor Wessing LLP (TW) act as the solicitors for the trustees of a number of these trusts.

On 14 August 2014, the claimant served a subject access request (SAR) on TW, requesting disclosure of the personal data relating to them held by TW as the solicitors for the trustees They were unsatisfied by the disclosure provided to them by TW, and brought proceedings under s7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).

The matter came before the Court of Appeal ([2017] 1 WLR 3255), whic...

Payne v Taylor [2019] EWHC 2347 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

By his will the deceased, who died in November 2010, left his estate as to one half to his widow. She, by a deed of variation complying with s142 Inheritance Tax Act 1984 ( ‘IHTA ‘) ,varied the will in order to settle her half share on a discretionary trust of which the beneficiaries were herself, her children and remoter issue. The trust included a power of appointment in favour of the beneficiaries.

In 2012, the widow was in need of additional income. The trustees proposed making an appointment to the widow giving her an irrevocable life interest i...

Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council 2018 EWHC 455 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

In 1914 and 1928 Mr Robert Fleming conveyed land to the Defendant for use as part of a school pursuant to the School Sites Act 1841 ‘to be applied as a part of the playground of the said School and for no other purpose whatever ‘. The interest in any land subject to reverter vested in the claimant beneficiaries.

In 2006 the defendant relocated the school to new premises and marketed the old premises for sale. One parcel including part of the site gifted in 1914 was sold in 2007. The defendant maintained that it intended to apply the proceeds of the sale of t...

Rogge v Rogge [2019] EWHC 1949 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

The first and second claimants had four children, three of whom were the defendants. The third defendant suffered a serious brain injury while playing polo and was left unable to walk unaided. The first and second claimants purchased two contiguous flats in London, one for themselves and the other for the third defendant. They also sought a house in the countryside which would serve both as a retirement home for themselves and as a place for their children and potential future grandchildren to visit, with an area designed to meet the needs of the third defendant. In February 2011 they id...

Scarle [2019] EWHC 2224 (Ch)

Winter 2019 #177

A husband and his wife were both found dead at their home in October 2016. Both were found to have died of hypothermia, and the wife ‘s body in a more advanced state of decomposition. They left jointly-owned property which fell to be distributed differently depending on which of them died first. The parties were the executors of their respective estates. s184 Law of Property Act 1925 provides as follows: “In all cases where … two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such deaths shall (subject to an...

David Roberts Art Foundation v Riedweg [2019] EWHC 1358 (Ch)

Autumn 2019 #176

The claimant was a registered charitable company and the owner of 15a and 37 Camden High Street, London, SW1 7JE (the property). In or around November 2016 the claimant’s directors decided to sell the property and instructed Robert Irving Burns (RIB) to market it. Following a targeted marketing campaign, the defendant made a formal bid to buy the property for £8,000,000. Heads of terms were agreed on 22 December 2016.

On 10 January 2017, the claimant instructed Mr Bryn Williams of DTZ Tie Leung Ltd (trading as Cushman & Wakefield) (CW) to prepare a report. A report was ...

Duke of Somerset v Fitzgerald & ors [2019] EWHC 726 (Ch)

Autumn 2019 #176

Shortly after he came of age, the 19th Duke of Somerset, claimant in this action, established a Settled Land Act settlement dated 30 September 1971 (the settlement). Under the terms of the settlement, the claimant was tenant for life and one of the trustees. The other trustees were independent professional trustees and were joined as first and second defendants. The rest of the defendants were all of the adult beneficiaries interested under the trusts of the settlement (all of whom supported the application), there being no existing minor beneficiaries nor any lacking capacity. ...