Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

Harriet Atkinson and Robert Laird Craig discuss a case that emphasises the high standards the courts expect from trustees towards beneficiaries

The recent case of Jeffery v Gretton and Russell [2011] examined the duty imposed on trustees by s4(2) Trustee Act 2000 to keep trust investments under review. Jeffery involved a will trust comprising a valuable but dilapidated property. The trustees decided to keep the property for almost six years while they undertook refurbishment works. They did not take professional advice on the merits of selling the property in its dilapidated condition and the repairs to the property significantly overran the trustees’ original time estimates. The court found that the trustees had breached their duty to review regularly the trust portfolio by their decision to keep the property and renovate it themselves. The court described the appropriate method for determining compensation for the beneficiaries but found the beneficiaries had not suffered any material loss so no damages were payable. 

Matthew Hansell provides pointers on the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes and IHT

In the 2004 Budget, it was announced that the government would introduce:

White v Williams shows the complications that can arise without specific charity law advice, as Paul Ridout relates

March saw the publication of the latest chapter in the High Court proceedings relating to the Tabernacle Church in Lewisham, known to its congregation as ‘the Tab’. Combined with Mr Justice Briggs’ previous ruling in 2010, this judgment provides a variety of useful insights into charity law, ranging from the question of the court’s jurisdiction under the cy-près doctrine in light of the new provisions in the Charities Act 2006, through the thorny question of a charity trustee’s right to be indemnified out of a charity’s assets, to the factors that the court will take into account when deciding whether to make a charging order.

Helen Ratcliffe examines Taube, which concerns the classification of corporate receipts and discovery principles

In October 2010, the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) reached a decision in the case of Bessie Taube Discretionary Settlement Trust trustees & ors v HMRCC [2011]. 

Catherine Paget looks at the Northall case, which sheds light on who inherits joint bank accounts

It is a common misconception among clients that the survivor of two joint bank account holders will automatically inherit the funds held in that joint account if they are a spouse, cohabitee or were in a family relationship with the deceased, notwithstanding that the funds in the joint account were contributed solely by the deceased.

Katharine Landells reviews Jones, the latest case to show the court’s attitude to inherited assets on divorce

Since the sea change in family law following White v White [2000], it has been a matter of debate as to how inherited wealth should be dealt with on divorce in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal has attempted to grasp the nettle in two recent cases: Robson v Robson [2011] and Jones v Jones [2011]. This article will explain the differing conclusions of the Court of Appeal in those cases and attempt to explain the current law in this developing field.

Geoffrey Shindler explores our conflicting attitudes towards privacy

Privacy. What do we have to do with any laws relating to privacy? Dear Reader, all will be revealed, as my Victorian predecessors might have written.

Marilyn McKeever looks at the implications for trustees and their advisers in the pivotal case Futter v Futter

In Futter & anor v Futter & ors [2011], Lord Justice Longmore declared that ‘these appeals provide examples of that competitively rare instance of the law taking a seriously wrong turn, of that wrong turn being not infrequently acted on over a twenty year period but this court being able to reverse that error and put the law back on the right course’.