Case: Re Holt’s Settlement [1969] 1 Ch 100

Re May Trust [2022] WTLR 637

The trustee of a Jersey trust known as the May Trust made a Public Trustee v Cooper Category 2 application for a ‘blessing’ of its decision to make a distribution to a beneficiary (B). The primary purpose of the distribution was to allow B to benefit a charity, which was also a beneficiary of the trust. The application was uncontentious.

The trust had been declared in 2000 by a deed of appointment. The appointing trust had been settled by B’s father in Cayman in 1982. The governing law of the May Trust was changed from Cayman law to Jersey law. The assets of the appointing trust w...

MN v OP & ors [2019] WTLR 941

In a claim for the approval of an arrangement varying a trust under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (the 1958 Act), an application was made for an anonymity order restricting the naming of the parties and access to the court file relating to the claim and the publication of certain information. The judge dismissed the application but gave permission for an appeal. The appellant, who brought the claim, was settlor of a settlement (the settlement), which comprised very valuable assets divided into several funds, some of which were held on discretionary trusts and others ...

A & ors v K & ors [2019] WTLR 335

Introduction

W, who died some years ago, established several settlements (referred to generally as ‘the General Family Trusts’), either directly or by trustees to whom he had provided funds. The value of the General Family Trusts was very substantial indeed. W had been married several times and had a large family. A representation was issued in respect of two of the General Family Trusts: the Y Trust and the Z Trust. The trustee companies of both of the trusts were amongst the respondents.

It had been W’s wish that after his death, in the administration of ...

Allfrey v Allfrey & Ors [2015] EWHC 1717 (Ch)

By a deed dated 24 July 1986, the ninth defendant (D9) made an accumulation and maintenance trust for IHT purposes (the settlement) for the benefit of his children (a class which has now closed): the claimant (C), the sixth defendant (D6) and the eighth defendant (D8).

The settlement provide d an initial trust for C, D6 and D8 at 25 in equal shares with a provision that each child’s share should be retained and held on engrafted trusts which have since been superseded. There was also a wide power of appointment in favour of the children, their spouses and issue, subject to r...