BH v JH [2024] WTLR 391
Summer 2024 #195The applicant was the deputy and brother of P, who was represented by the Official Solicitor. P had a lifelong learning disability and the presumption of capacity was displaced. The application was for the variation of a statutory will made in 2008 on behalf of P. There was no dispute as to the terms of the proposed variation or that it was in the best interests of P.
The 2008 statutory will provided for the creation of a discretionary trust for a period of two years less one day, of £1m plus P’s home (worth £600,000) and chattels, in favour of four categories of beneficiaries inc...
BH v JH (costs) [2024] WTLR 403
Summer 2024 #195A deputy had made an application to vary a statutory will and disputed that carers and unidentified charities needed to be served and notified of the same. The Official Solicitor made an application to resolve the dispute on service and the court determined, as argued by the Official Solicitor, that the rules required service of the variation application on carers and unidentified charities but that service on the carers could be dispensed with. The Official Solicitor made an application for the costs of the service issue.
Held: (1) Each case must be considered on its own merits or ...Benjamin v Benjamin & anr [2024] WTLR 411
Summer 2024 #195The claimant was the child of the first defendant (his father) and the second defendant (his mother). On 5 March 1999, the defendants settled shares in the family company (BPL) on themselves as trustees of a discretionary trust for the benefit of the claimant and his brother and their issue.
The claimant’s case was that the defendants had assured him that half of the family business would eventually pass to him, but that he suspected that something had happened which was inconsistent with those assurances. In March 2021, the claimant requested from BPL’s accountants a copy of its ...
Brealey v Shepherd & Co Solicitors [2024] WTLR 427
Summer 2024 #195A testator appointed as executors her brother, Mr Hayward, and the partners of the defendant, a firm of solicitors. At the time of the testator’s death Mr Shepherd and another solicitor, Mr Smyth, were the only partners in the defendant. Mr Hayward and Mr Shepherd took probate. The will did not contain a charging clause.
The claimant was a residuary beneficiary and the occupant of the testator’s home. The claimant refused to move out and an issue also arose over a loan made by the testator to the claimant. To progress these matters and the administration of the estate, the executo...
Byers & ors v Saudi National Bank [2024] WTLR 443
Summer 2024 #195The third claimant (SICL) was a company registered in the Cayman Islands. By transactions which took place between 2002 and 2008 Mr Al-Sanea came to hold shares in five Saudi Arabian companies (the disputed securities) under trusts governed by Cayman Islands law for the benefit of SICL. Cayman and English trust law were the same so far as was relevant to this appeal.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands made a winding-up order against SICL on 18 September 2009 pursuant to a petition presented on 30 July 2009. The first and second claimants were appointed as SICL’s joint liquidato...
Folds Farm Trustees Ltd & anr v Cutts & ors [2024] WTLR 503
Summer 2024 #195The claimants were the corporate trustees of two family trusts established respectively by a deed of variation relating to the will of Oliver Cutts (the 1997 trust), and by the will of Susan Cutts (the will trust). The beneficiaries of these trusts were Susan’s children, grandchildren and remoter issue who were living on or born before specified dates.
The primary asset of the trusts was Folds Farm, a farm in the New Forest in Hampshire comprising various buildings and farmland totalling almost 340 acres. The majority of the farm was within the will trust, while the 1997 trust com...
Grosskopf v Grosskopf & anr [2024] WTLR 530
Summer 2024 #195The parties were siblings and beneficiaries of a trust established by their parents. In addition, the defendants were also the trustees. The claimant applied to appoint a judicial trustee in place of the defendants on the basis that the defendants had engaged in conduct that appeared to have been in breach of their duties as trustees or may have been dishonest. The parties had previously entered into an arbitration agreement before the Beth Din of the Federation of Synagogues. The court and the tribunal had previously determined that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claim. T...
Henchley & ors v Thompson & anr [2024] WTLR 559
Summer 2024 #195The settlor executed a trust deed dated 12 September 1960 (the trust), under the terms of which the trustees were given a power of appointment over capital and income for the benefit of the beneficiaries and their respective issue. The power was limited by a deed dated 28 March 1978 so that it could be exercised only in relation to the capital of the trust fund to which a beneficiary then enjoyed an interest in possession. In default of appointment, the capital and income of the trust fund was to be held for such of the beneficiaries living on the perpetuity day (which was to be calculat...
Kenig v Thomson Snell & Passmore LLP [2024] WTLR 595
Summer 2024 #195The claimant and his sister were beneficiaries of the will of their mother. The defendant, a solicitors’ firm, was instructed by the sole executor to administer the estate. The defendant’s original costs estimate was £10,000-£15,000 plus VAT, but its invoices totalled £54,410.99 plus VAT and expenses. The claimant challenged the fees charged and applied for an assessment under s71(3) Solicitors Act 1973, which a costs judge ordered. The defendant appealed on grounds restricted to Tim Martin Interiors Ltd v Akin Gump LLP [2011], namely, that it was not open to a beneficiary to challenge l...
Lane v Lane & ors [2024] WTLR 615
Summer 2024 #195The claims concerned the estate of Monica Lane (the deceased), who died on 8 May 2019. The deceased had three children, David, Susan (the first defendant) and Peter, the last of whom predeceased her leaving two children, the second and third defendants. David died on 17 January 2021 and Karen (the claimant) was David’s widow and personal representative of his estate.
The deceased and David formed a trading farming partnership, embodied in a 12 October 2002 partnership agreement. That agreement provided that the partnership would dissolve on, among other things, permanent incapacit...