Chadwick v Lypiatt [2018] EWHC 1986 (Ch)

Spring 2019 #174

This case concerned the ownership of the property and copyright interests in the bulk of the works of Lynn Chadwick (‘the Artist’), one of the leading British sculptors of his time and whose works are exhibited at leading galleries and museums around the world. He died on 25th April 2003, but his estate was not yet wound up because of a dispute. The claimants were the Artist’s executors, who brought the issues before the court but did not take an active part in the proceedings. The first defendant was a company that had been owned by the Artist and his wife (‘the Company’), which claimed...

Gelber v The Sutherland Foundation [2018] EWHC 2344 (Ch)

Spring 2019 #174

The claimants and two of the defendants were all grandsons of the 11th Duke of Marlborough and beneficiaries of a settlement made on 13 October 1981. The trustees of the 1981 settlement are a Guernsey foundation and one of its council members. The foundation was not a trust corporation within the meaning of s68(18) Trustee Act 1925.

Amongst the trust assets were 166 acres of land at Woodstock, Oxfordshire which in 2018 was granted planning permission for residential development, subject to a condition that the trustees give a binding covenant to make a heritage contribution of 70...

HMRC v Parry [2018] EWCA Civ 2266

Spring 2019 #174

Shortly before her death the director of a company (S) transferred the funds from a company pension policy acquired by her on her divorce from her ex-husband and known as a s32 buyout policy (the s32 policy) to a personal pension policy (PPP) issued by AXA. At the same time S nominated her two sons as her beneficiaries in relation to the death benefit payable under the PPP. If the s32 pension had remained in the company scheme, on her death a sum would have been payable to S’s estate which would have been chargeable to IHT. S’s sons were the residua...

Hogarth v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0595 (TC)

Spring 2019 #174

The appellants were trustees of a life interest trust, the income of which was mandated to the life tenant and passed directly to him. HMRC served a notice under s8A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 to file an income tax return on the trustees. When no return was filed, HMRC assessed penalties against the trustees for failure to file the return by the due date. The trustees appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal against the decision of HMRC to reject their appeals, arguing that they thought a return had been filed by their previous agents, that given that the return was a ...

Investec v Glenalla [2018] UKPC 7

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 Switzerland.

The ...

Lomax v Greenslade [2018] EWHC 2623 (Ch)

Spring 2019 #174

The three adult children of a Mr Lomax brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 against Ms Greenslade, the sole executor and beneficiary of Mr Lomax’s estate.

At trial HHJ Bailey concluded that the estate, which comprised a single property in London valued at £699,000, failed to make reasonable provision for the three children. He decided that Ms Greenslade should receive £69,000, being the sum of £20,000 which the deceased intended to give her under a draft will that was never executed, and the sum of £49,000 to cover th...

Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866

Spring 2019 #174

A company was incorporated by the husband and a friend in 1978 as equal shareholders. The husband and wife started living together in 1986, and married in 1989. At this point, the husband acquired 99% of the shares and the wife 1%. They separated in 2015.

On a wife’s application for a financial remedy order, the judge found that the capital assets were £182m in properties and pension funds, and 100% of the shares in a private company, which he valued at £221m before tax and costs of sale. He found that 80% of the company’s value was marital property, by applying a straight-line ap...

Macintyre & anor v Oliver & ors [2018] EWHC 3094 (Ch

Spring 2019 #174

The claimants were the trustees of the trusts arising under the wills of Violet Hamblen-Thomas (Violet) and Charles Hamben-Thomas (Charles). They had issued a Part 8 claim form seeking the guidance of the court as to the true construction of the will trusts and as to the identification of the beneficiaries, represented by the defendants. Apart from her only son, Edwin Hamblen-Thomas (Edwin), Violet had a life-long friend, Enid Simpson, whose daughter was the first and second defendant (Victoria). Violet, by her will dated 16 December 1968 (Violet’s will), gave Charles a life interest in ...

Perwaz v Perwaz [2018] UKUT 325 (TCC)

Spring 2019 #174

The Respondent was originally the sole proprietor of 54 Beaulieu Close, Slough (‘Property’). The Appellant, who was one of her children, managed the family wholesale grocery business. He and his wife moved into the Property to live with the Respondent and spent money on its extension and refurbishment. On 12 October 2012 the Respondent made a new Will gifting a 25% share in the Property to the Appellant and giving him an option to purchase the whole on her death. On the same day the Respondent executed a Declaration of Trust by which she declared that she held the Property as to 75% for ...

Sheffield v Sheffield [2018] EWHC 2360 (Ch)

Spring 2019 #174

Following judgment upholding claims for various breaches of trust (Sheffield v Sheffield & ors [2014] WTLR 1039, [2013] EWHC 3927 (Ch)), the judge ordered accounts, on the footing of wilful default, and inquiries consequent upon the judgment. The accounting parties were the executors of (and standing in the shoes of) a defaulting trustee (“A”) and the individual who benefited from the breaches of trust (“B”). Agreement was reached in respect of certain accounts and the claimant (“C”) pursued other accounts and inquiries, in respect of vari...