Martin v Williams [2017] WTLR 1041
Autumn 2017 #169This was an appeal against a decision of the County Court ([2016] WTLR 1075) to make reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for Mrs Joy Williams from the estate of her deceased partner Norman Martin. Under the terms of Mr Martin’s last will his entire estate passed to Mrs Maureen Martin, Mr Martin’s wife, from whom he was separated, but to whom he remained married until the date of his death. Mr and Mrs Martin had not divorced but they had made an informal arrangement regarding their separation.
HHJ Gerald made an order ...
Nahajec v Fowle [2017] WTLR 1071
Autumn 2017 #169By a will dated 7 July 2015 Stanley Nahajec (‘deceased’) left the whole of his estate valued at £265,710 to the defendant whom he appointed as sole executor. The deceased died on 19 July 2015 and a grant of probate to the defendant was issued on 15 October 2015. The claimant, who was one of three adult children of the deceased, brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (‘Act’) on 12 April 2016. One of her half siblings, Mark Nahajec, similarly made a claim under the act which was settled by a payment of £22,000 though his circumstances differed ...
Rangers v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] WTLR 1093
Autumn 2017 #169The 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...
Routier & anr v HMRC [2017] WTLR 1119
Autumn 2017 #169The appeal concerned the restriction (the Restriction) imposed by s23 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA), as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in an earlier hearing of the appeal, on IHT relief for legacies and gifts to charities, to legacies and gifts to UK charities subject to the supervision of the UK courts. The question was whether the Restriction violated the EU law principle of freedom of movement of capital so as not to be enforceable in relation to a legacy of an estate with assets situate in the UK to a Jersey charity.
There were three sub-issues:
(1) Was Jerse...The Public Guardian’s Severance Applications [2017] WTLR 1145
Autumn 2017 #169The Public Guardian brought various consolidated applications for severance under para 11((3) of Schedule 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA 2005) in respect of various lasting powers of attorney which were potentially unlawful or ineffective by reason of the operation of s9 MCA 2005, which provides that an LPA is not created unless it is made and registered in accordance with Schedule 1 of para 19.
Held: 1) As to MC, the donor at s7 of the LPA had instructed that ‘Any financial decisions up to the value of £150.00 can be made independently by my attorneys. However any...Vigne v HMRC [2017] WTLR 1193
Autumn 2017 #169The deceased died on 29 May 2012. At the time she was the sole beneficial owner of 30 acres of land (the land) used for carrying out a livery business. The business provided less than ‘part livery’ (ie day-to-day care being shared between the livery operator and horse owner) but more than ‘DIY Livery’ (ie a right to reside in a field plus a stable). For example the business provided worming products for the horses and hay feed during winter months.
The deceased’s personal representatives claimed BPR on the ground that the land was ‘relevant busi...
Akers & ors v Samba [2017] UKSC 6
Summer 2017 #168Mr Al-Sanea was the legal owner of shares in five Saudi Arabian banks, including Samba Financial Group (appellant). As a result of six transactions between 2002 and 2008 Mr Al-Sanea agreed to hold the relevant shares in trust for Saad Investments Co Ltd (SICL), a company subject to the laws of the Cayman Islands. Compulsory winding up proceedings of SICL commenced on 30 June 2009 and, six weeks later, Mr Al-Sanea in breach of trust transferred the legal title to the relevant shares to the appellant, purporting thereby to discharge personal liabilities which he had towards it. On 19 Augus...
Akita Holdings v Turks and Caicos Islands [2017] UKPC 7
Summer 2017 #168Mr 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 ...
Armstrong v Onyearu [2017] EWCA Civ 268
Summer 2017 #168Mr and Mrs Onyearu were a married couple. Mr Onyearu was declared bankrupt in 2011 and Mr Armstrong was his trustee in bankruptcy. The question before the Court was whether Mrs Onyearu could rely upon the equity of exoneration in order to take a charge over her husband’s share of the matrimonial home.
Mr Onyearu was the sole registered proprietor of the matrimonial home in Catford (purchased in 2000), and he and his wife maintained that they beneficially owned the property in equal shares. In 2005, a loan facility was granted to Mr Onyearu by Bank of Scotland in order to pr...
Bathurst v Bathurst [2016] EWHC 3033 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168This was an application under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 to change a provision relating to the appointment of new trustees of a settlement. Following the death of the settlor, the statutory power under s36 Trustee Act 1925 applies. The variation proposed was that for the future, the principal beneficiary for the time being should have the power to appoint need trustees, with the written consent of the trustees for the time being.
All of the adult beneficiaries of the settlement, and three of the four current trustees supported the change. It was opposed by the fourth trustee...