Oakhurst & ors v Blackstar (Isle of Man) Ltd & anr [2012] EWHC 1131 (Ch)
September 2012 #122The first claimant (the principal employer) set up employee retirement benefit schemes (ERBS) for three of its directors, the second to fourth claimants on 23 November 2007, under which the directors were each members of their own schemes. The first defendant, Blackstar (Isle of Man) Ltd (Blackstar) was the trustee for all three schemes. Under the ERBSs, the trustees were given an express power that they could exercise by lending all of the trust fund to the member or other beneficiary on uncommercial terms, and in each case Blackstar received some £2m from the principal employer and it ...
Phillipe & ors v Cameron & ors [2012] EWHC 1040 (Ch)
September 2012 #122The claimants were the trustees of the St Andrew’s (Cheam) Lawn Tennis Club Trust (the trustees). The trustees sought declarations as to the beneficial ownership of land occupied by the St Andrew’s (Cheam) Lawn Tennis Club (the club) since 1938 (the land).
The church now known as St Andrew’s United Reformed Church Cheam (the church) was originally founded in the 1920s. From the church’s inception many of its members played tennis together and in 1930 they established a tennis club which was to become the club. The club’s first general meeting was held...
Cardigan v Moore & anr [2012] EWHC 1024 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121At the end of the 1940s, the Savernake Estate, which was the subject of these proceedings, was held by a company owned by the 7th and 8th Marquesses of Ailesbury. Between 1949 and 1951 the company was replaced by a partnership. There was a conveyance executed in 1951 by which the estate was conveyed to the Marquesses on trust for sale as part of their partnership. The partnership property also included the family collection of paintings and other chattels. By 1963, there was an agreement that the partnership would be carried on by the 8th Marquess, who had a 51% share, and the trustees f...
Gregg & anr v Pigott & ors [2012] EWHC 732 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121The court was asked to construe the phrase ‘statutory next of kin’ in a settlement that was executed in 1948. It was common ground that, under the classic rules of construction, that phrase would have excluded adopted children because the intestacy rules in 1948 did not benefit adopted children. However, the adopted children argued that they were entitled to capital and income under the trust in preference to their distant cousins who would have benefited under the intestacy rules as enacted in 1948. The adopted children argued that to prevent them benefiting would be a breac...
Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Mrs Barbara Lilleyman applied for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband Mr Roy Lilleyman pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act). Nigel and Christopher Lilleyman, who were Mr Lilleyman’s sons from a previous marriage, were the executors of Mr Lilleyman’s estate under his will dated 20 May 2008. Nigel and Christopher Littleman were the principal beneficiaries of Mr Lilleyman’s estate and were the defendants to Mrs Lilleyman’s application.
Mr and Mrs Lilleyman had each been married previously and each had two...
Lilleyman v Lilleyman & anr (costs) [2012] EWHC 1056 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Briggs J gave judgment in relation to costs occasioned by Mrs Barbara Lilleyman’s successful claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate of her late husband, reported as Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] WTLR 1007.
There had been extensive without prejudice negotiations and offers (both Part 36 offers and without prejudice offers) had been made by both sides. On 27 July 2011, the defendants had made two simultaneous offers: a Part 36 offer (the July Part 36 offer) and a without prejudice offer (the July without prejudice offer). The defendants made a further without ...
Public Trustee v Butler & anr [2012] EWHC 858 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121The public trustee brought a Part 8 claim concerning the construction of the will dated 22 June 1967 of Saral Kumar Bose (testator). The testator had been born in India on 3 May 1893 and had subsequently moved to England where he had worked as an electrical engineer for London Underground. He was married to Florence Katie Bose (widow) and had died childless on 13 September 1972. The widow had died on 23 May 1998. At the time of his death, the net value of the testator’s estate was £137,307 and on 17 September 2012 it comprised investments of £581,150 with unapplied income of £265,6...
Rai & ors v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2012] EWHC 1111 (Ch)
July/August 2012 #121Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha (Sabha), an incorporated registered charitable association, was based at a temple in Southall. Ravidassias were followers of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji (b 1377), some of whose teachings were incorporated in the Shri Guru Granth Sahib (the Granth). The constitution of 14 December 2007 set out the objects of the Sabha which were the worship of God in accordance with the teachings and philosophy, mission and principles of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji derived from the Granth and research of Holy Scriptures of Shri Guru Ravidass Ji. Over the years such research had uncovered othe...
D R Sheridan LLP v Higgins & anr [2012] EWHC 547 (Ch)
June 2012 #120C left a will appointing her son and daughter as executors and benefiting her family. Initially, both the son and the daughter instructed a solicitor, D. There was a dispute as to £200,000 which had been transferred out of the estate (although it was not clear when) by the daughter. D suggested that the daughter obtain independent advice, which she did. D was then only instructed by the son. The son brought proceedings for an interim injunction preserving the £200,000, which were compromised but the ultimate issue of ownership not finally resolved. There was a breakdown in relations betw...
Ibuna & anr v Arroyo & anr [2012] EWHC 428 (Ch)
June 2012 #120Congressman A was resident in both California and the Philippines. He was domiciled in the Philippines. He died while receiving treatment in the UK. There was a dispute between A’s estranged second wife (Mrs A) and his life partner (Ms I) as to who should take possession of A’s body and make arrangements for burial in the Philippines. Ms I initiated proceedings in England; Mrs A began proceedings in the Philippines. Mrs A intended (as was her right as a wife under Filipino law) to dispose of the body and have a wake at her home (from which A had, prior to his death, been excl...