Webb v Webb [2020] WTLR 1461

Winter 2020 #181

The appeal arose in a dispute between husband and wife about the matrimonial property available for division.

After Mr and Mrs Webb were married in 2005, Mr Webb established two family trusts for the purpose of acquiring land and other assets in the Cook Islands (the Arorangi Trust and the Webb Family Trust).

The Arorangi Trust was established with Mr Webb as sole trustee, and Mr Webb and his son Sebastian as the two beneficiaries. The deed provided for a consultant to assist the trustee and for who could remove the trustee, request early vesting of the property and consent...

Investec & anr v Glenalla & ors [2019] WTLR 95

Spring 2019 #174

The Background

The Privy Council heard eight appeals arising from the management of the Tchenguiz Discretionary Trust (“TDT”) between March 2007 and October 2008.

The TDT is a discretionary trust governed by the law of Jersey; in the period in question it had two trustees which were governed by Guernsey law: Investec Trust (Guernsey) Limited (“Investec”) and Bayeux Trustees Limited (collectively “the Trustees”). In July 2010 the Trustees were replaced as trustees of the TDT by Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA (“R&H”), a company incorporated in Switzer...

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & anr [2018] WTLR 379

Summer 2018 #172

This appeal arose from an application by the defendants for summary judgment, dismissing the claim on the ground that it was statute-barred. The claim was for (and was for the purposes of the application assumed to have been) an unlawful distribution by the claimant company six years and three days before the issue of the claim form. Although, by the time of the hearing but after permission had been given to appeal, the claimant had amended its claim to include an allegation of fraud, so that there could not be summary judgment, the court considered the issue as to the meaning of s23...

Rangers v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] WTLR 1093

Autumn 2017 #169

The appeal concerned a tax avoidance scheme by which employers paid remuneration to their employees through an employees’ remuneration trust in the hope that the scheme would avoid liability to income tax and Class 1 national insurance contributions. The question on appeal was whether an employee’s remuneration was taxable as their emoluments or earnings when it was paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.

The employing companies, including RFC, operated the tax avoidance scheme in the tax years between...

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

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. Unknown to ...

Angove’s PTY Limited v Bailey & anr [2016] UKSC 47

October 2016 #163

A, an Australian winemaker, employed an English company called D&D as its agent and distributor in the UK. D&D bought wines from A in its own right and sold wines on A’s behalf pursuant to an agency and distribution agreement (the agreement). The agreement was terminable by either party on six months’ notice or by notice with immediate effect in a number of events including the appointment of an administrator or liquidator.

On 21 April 2012, D&D went into administration and on 10 July 2012 into creditors’ voluntary liquidation. On administration there were outstanding ...

Brazil v Durant [2015] UKPC 35

October 2015 # 153

The effective plaintiff was the municipality of Sao Paulo (the municipality). The Federal Republic of Brazil was nominally the plaintiff because its constitution required it to be a party to any action brought outside Brazil by a Brazilian public authority. The defendants were companies registered in the British Virgin Islands (the companies) which were, at the relevant time, under the practical control of Mr Paulo Maluf and/or his son Mr Flavio Maluf. From 1993 Mr Paulo Maluf had been mayor of the municipality.

The case concerned payments made to Mr Paulo Maluf, or others on his ...

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

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...

Marley v Rawlings & anr [2014] WTLR 299

March 2014 #137

Mr Alfred Rawlings and his wife Maureen Rawlings instructed a solicitor to draft their wills in mirror form. Each spouse intended to leave his or her entire estate to the survivor of them, but provided that, should the other have predeceased or survived them for less than a month, their estates should be left to the appellant, who was not related to them but whom they treated as their son. Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ solicitor attended them on 17 May 1999 to enable a due execution of draft wills containing these provisions. By an oversight, their solicitor gave each spouse the other’s draft wil...

Futter & anr v HMRC; Pitt & anr v HMRC [2013] WTLR 977

July/August 2013 #131

The first appeal concerned two settlements, made with non-resident trustees, by Mr Futter. Considerable ‘stockpiled’ gains were rolled up while the trusts were non-resident and, in exercise of the powers conferred by the trusts, new resident trustees were appointed and capital was distributed to Mr Futter and his children in the mistaken belief that the ‘stockpiled’ gains, which would be attributed to them, would be absorbed by allowable losses that had been realised, so that no liability to capital gains tax would arise. In advising as to the effect of s87 of the Taxation a...