Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees SA [2020] WTLR 1075
Autumn 2020 #180The claimant was the intended beneficiary of the Puyol trust (the trust) which was created in discretionary form by Hyman Sofer (the settlor) in July 2006. The defendant was a professional trustee company based in Switzerland. The settlor was added as a ‘specified beneficiary’ while the claimant and other issue of the settlor became ‘general beneficiaries’. The trust included a power for the trustee to lend any money forming part of the trust assets to any beneficiary and there was a prohibition on the trustee paying any part of the capital to any beneficiary prior to the death of the se...
Kingsley & anr v Kingsley [2020] WTLR 593
Summer 2020 #179The deceased and the respondent were siblings who co-owned farmland in equal shares and used it in a partnership between them (though it was not a partnership asset). After the deceased died, the respondent remained in occupation and continued to farm the land. His executors (the appellants) therefore applied for an order for sale under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA).
The appellants also claimed an occupation rent, which the respondent admitted she was liable to pay. Before trial, the appellants sought and obtained an interim ord...
Shiner v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs [2018] WTLR 649
Summer 2018 #172Facts
DS and IS were at all material times resident in the UK for tax purposes and were beneficially entitled to the income from MOH, an English property development company of which they were the shareholders and directors. On advice, they used a tax avoidance scheme that took advantage of the provisions of the 1955 UK-Isle of Man double tax treaty (DTT). These provisions exempted the industrial or commercial profits of an Isle of Man (IOM) enterprise, which could include a partnership, from UK tax unless it was engaged in trade or business in the UK through a permanent establis...
Creggy v Barnett & anr [2018] WTLR 35
Spring 2018 #171In 1998 the appellant solicitor transferred $1.2m without his clients’ knowledge and authority and in breach of fiduciary duty to the respondents. Proceedings were issued in 2012. The appellant argued the claim was statute-barred pursuant to s21(3) Limitation Act 1980. The respondents relied upon a letter written by the appellant in 2006 as constituting an acknowledgement of the claim for the purposes of s29(5) of the Act, which provides:
‘where any right of action has accrued to recover… any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim… and the person li...
Barnsley & ors v Noble [2016] EWCA Civ 799
November 2016 #164Michael and Philip Noble were brothers who built up a substantial property empire known as the Noble Organisation. It had a complex ownership and management structure involving a number of companies and partnerships and certain trusts for the benefit of their respective families. Michael died in 2006. The executors were Philip, his widow Gillian, and John Barnsley (an accountant associated with PricewaterhouseCoopers). There was a demerger of the business side and property side of the Noble Organisation with Philip taking the business assets and Gill taking the property assets. This was ...
King v The Chiltern Dog Rescue & anr [2015] EWCA Civ 581
September 2015 #152June Margaret Fairbrother (deceased) lived at 12 Kingcroft Road, Harpenden (property) with a number of cats and dogs, of which she was very fond, as she had no children. It was common knowledge within her family that she intended to leave her estate to animal charities which she supported. By a will dated 20 March 1998 (last will) the deceased left her residuary estate to seven such charities (charities). The claimant, who was a nephew, came to live with the deceased, when she was 78 years old, in the summer of 2007. The arrangement was that he would care for his aunt in return for a hom...
National Westminster Bank v Lucas [2014] EWCA Civ 1632
May 2015 #149Jimmy Savile died in October 2011. His will dated 24 July 2006 named NatWest as his executor and left the residue of his estate to the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust (the trust) which he had created in 1984. Probate was obtained on 8 March 2012 with a net estate of £4.3m. The bank placed s27 Trustee Act adverts on 5 January 2012.
Following an ITV programme broadcast on 4 October 2012 accusing Mr Savile of being a serial sex offender, NatWest began to receive letters from potential claimants seeking compensation from the estate. NatWest quickly appreciated that the estate c...
AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 45
October 2013 #133In 2006, Drs Ravindra and Salma Sondhi applied to the claimant (AIB) for a loan of £3.3m, to be secured against their private home, in order to provide finance for their business. The application stated that the Sondhis’ home was worth £4.5m but was subject to an existing mortgage in favour of Barclays Bank to secure an outstanding loan of £1.5m. AIB agreed to the loan but required security over the Sondhis’ home in the form of first legal charge. AIB instructed the defendant (MRC) to act for it in connection with the remortgage and provided MRC with a facility letter which s...
Hawes v Burgess & anr [2013] WTLR 453
April 2013 #128Daphne Burgess, the deceased (D), died in May 2009 aged 80. She had three children: the appellant, Julia (J), and the respondents, Peter (P) and Libby (L). P and the deceased were very close. He organised her finances and in 2006 bought a bungalow for her to live in. It was to remain in his name, but subject to a lease to his mother to give her security. They agreed that she would pay £21,000 towards the cost of a new kitchen and bathroom that she wanted installed. J and P fell out for a number of reasons, mainly connected with the purchase of the bungalow and related arrangements affect...
Bieber & ors v Teathers Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1466
January/February 2013 #126The defendant (Teathers) promoted a series of unregulated collective investment schemes intended to take advantage of tax reliefs available on investments in TV productions. UK tax payers were entitled to write down 100% of any expenditure on a film or TV production certified as a British Qualifying Film. The schemes had not proved successful. Many of the productions were commercial failures and a number of them had not been certified as British Qualifying Films and were illegible for the tax relief that was the rationale behind the schemes. The claimants argued that money invested in th...