Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2019 #177The first and second claimants had four children, three of whom were the defendants. The third defendant suffered a serious brain injury while playing polo and was left unable to walk unaided. The first and second claimants purchased two contiguous flats in London, one for themselves and the other for the third defendant. They also sought a house in the countryside which would serve both as a retirement home for themselves and as a place for their children and potential future grandchildren to visit, with an area designed to meet the needs of the third defendant. In February 2011 they id...
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2018 #172The claimant was the trustee of an employment benefit trust (the EBT). The trustee had an interest in a company that owned and controlled a business (the utility). The beneficiaries of the EBT were the former and current employees of the utility and other group companies and their dependants. The trustee entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the sale of the EBT’s interest in the company, conditional upon certain relief from the court. Following the sale, there would be a distribution of the trust property amongst various beneficiaries.
Held
The fol...
In Freedman v Freedman, Clare Stanley QC analyses HMRC’s arguments against rescission of a voluntary disposition due to mistake ‘Practitioners need to bear in mind for the future that HMRC may challenge cases of unintended tax consequences concentrating on the gravity of the mistake.’ This article examines the recent decision of Mrs Justice Proudman in …
Continue reading "Mistake: Facing the consequences"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | September 2015 #152In 2001 the claimant purchased a house (St Leonard’s Close) with the assistance of a loan from her father. In 2004-5 the claimant’s father agreed to forego the loan. In 2010 the claimant moved out of St Leonard’s Close and into rented accommodation. The claimant wished to buy a different house (Gibbs Green) but she had difficulty selling St Leonard’s Close. Her father therefore agreed to lend her sufficient funds to cover the purchase price of £525,000 and the acquisition costs of £5,000 in respect of Gibbs Green. The claimant’s father made clear, and the claimant agreed, that this was a...
Kennedy v Kennedy [2015] expands the horizons of the doctrine of mistake. Steven Kempster and Sarah Aughwane explain ‘If a trustee makes a causative mistake of sufficient gravity, the transaction is voidable even if the mistake is as to the tax consequences.’ Two years ago the Supreme Court heard the joined appeals in Pitt v …
Continue reading "Mistake: Fault lines"
This post is only available to members.
