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...
British Red Cross v Werry [2017] EWHC 875 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168Patricia Deeley (Miss Deeley) lived with her unmarried partner, Peter Harding (Mr Harding) in his flat at 87 Beckenham Lane, Bromley (the property) from 1962 to 2008. When Mr Harding died on 11 August 2008, it was believed (incorrectly) that he had not left a will and, therefore, the intestacy rules regulated the succession to his estate. Letters of Administration were granted to one of Mr Harding’s cousins, Maurice John Littlewood (Mr Littlewood) on 2 March 2010. An action brought by Miss Deeley under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the...
Cronin v De Hamel [2017] EWHC 454 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168The Brindle Estate near Chorley belonged to Patience Aspinall, who died in 1985. The Estate passed to her sister Honour Ruth (‘Miss Aspinall’) as her executor and sole beneficiary. In the early 1990s, the Brindle Estate was subject to compulsory purchase for the construction of the M65 motorway over the northern part. By February 1994, the Department of Transfer had entered upon the land for the purpose of commencing construction. Miss Aspinall received interim payments on account of the compensation payable to her arising from construction of the M65, in particular, £46,727 in October 1...
Davis v Jackson [2017] EWHC 698 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168The respondents (Rs) are a married couple but at all times after 2001 were estranged and living apart. The wife (R2) purchased a property (the property) in 2003 using monies from another property owned by her and the remainder by interest-only mortgage. The title to the property was in R2’s sole name and she moved in with her children. The husband (R1) never lived in the property.
Shortly after purchase, Rs signed a declaration of trust declaring inter alia that R2 held the property on trust for herself and R1 in equal shares, that she would register R1’s interest and ...
Hand & anr v George & anr [2017] EWHC 533 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168By his will dated 6 May 1946 Henry Hand (testator) directed his trustees to hold his residuary estate upon trust as to one equal third part (Kenneth’s share) to pay the income thereof to his son Kenneth Hand during his life and on his death as to both capital and income thereof for such of his children as attained the age of 21 years and if more than one in equal shares. In default of children, Kenneth’s share was directed to pass to the testator’s children, Gordon Hand and Joan George. The testator died on 9 June 1947 survived by all three children. Gordon Hand died without issue on 15 ...
Ilott v The Blue Cross & ors [2017] WTLR 533
Summer 2017 #168The testatrix (T) died in 2004 leaving an adult daughter (C) from whom she had been estranged for 26 years. C had left home aged 17 to live with her boyfriend (B), of whom T disapproved. B later became C’s husband and they had five children. At the time of T’s death, C and her family lived in straitened financial circumstances: they lived in a house rented from a housing association, were reliant on benefits save for the husband’s intermittent work as a supporting actor and could not afford new household equipment or family holidays.
During the lifelong estrangement there had been...
J v U; U v J (No. 2) Domicile [2017] EWHC 449 (Fam)
Summer 2017 #168The question before the court was, in the context of divorce proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent, whether either party to the marriage were domiciled in England and Wales. The respondent’s position was that neither were so domiciled, such that the divorce petition of the petitioner should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
At the time of the proceedings the respondent was 72 years old. He was born in Mumbai, India. He moved to London with his family when he was 13 or 14. He studied in England, married and purchased a property in London, and pursued a ...
Littlewood v Morley [2015] CHP 66
Summer 2017 #168L applied pursuant to s8(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1990 to remove M as her co-executor and co-trustee of the estate of their father. The beneficiaries of the estate were L (50 percent) and M’s two children (50 percent). The estate was modest including some personal chattels, a small bank account and a property worth circa £210,000.
M and his wife had issued a claim against the estate for £170,229, allegedly owed for nursing care provided to the deceased (the litigation).
L averred that M should be removed as trustee due to the ligation ...
Newman v Clarke [2016] EWHC 2959 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168On 20 December 1996 the first defendant settled £150,000 on an accumulation and maintenance trust for the benefit of inter alia the second and third claimant (‘the settlement’). On 11 April 1997 a lease of a certain property was granted to the first defendant. This lease was capable of being enfranchised under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (‘the 1967 Act’) such as to enable the first defendant to obtain the freehold interest in the property. On 19 June 1997, the freehold reversion of the lease was sold to the original trustees of the Settlement. On 25 June 1997, t...
O’Keefe v Caner [2017] EWHC 1105 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168This was a trial of the preliminary issue of whether claims made by the joint liquidators of two Jersey-incorporated companies against the respondents were time-barred as a matter of Jersey law.
In the proceedings, the applicants claimed that between 10 April 2007 and 10 June 2008 payments were made of €16m and €18m from ‘Level One’ and ‘Special Opportunity’ respectively, to or for the benefit of the first respondent or companies owned beneficially by him. Those payments were claimed not to have been made in good faith for a legitimate commercial purpose of the companies, and the ...