This category can only be viewed by members.
David Schmitz considers whether the will must be present when a testator acknowledges their signature to witnesses ‘The existence of a perceived danger of substitution in some cases, and the desirability of reducing the need for oral evidence in consequent litigation, can justify the inference that the draftsman did intend to impose a requirement for …
Continue reading "Wills: An unresolved question"
This post is only available to members.
Sian Hodgson gives the lowdown on executor’s costs in litigation, with reference to the recent case of Taylor v Saunders ‘An executor who has been involved in the preparation and execution of a will, in which he is also appointed executor, may naturally wish to “defend” that will’ The issue of an executor’s costs in …
Continue reading "Executor’s Costs: Neutrality is key"
This post is only available to members.
Lynsey Oakdene and Camilla Dalzell discuss the definition of a Quistclose trust and the circumstances in which a court will find that one exists, following Tuthill ‘A Quistclose trust arises in circumstances where a transferor transfers money to another with the intention that the money is to be used for a specific and exclusive purpose.’ …
Continue reading "Quistclose Trusts: Clear segregation"
This post is only available to members.
Spurling v Broadhurst confirms the court’s current approach in placing emphasis on the intention of the testator rather than strict rules of will construction. Daisy Boulter investigates ‘The court in Spurling took a broad range of evidence into account, including the testator’s characteristics, in deciding how to construe the gift in remainder clause.’ In Spurling …
Continue reading "Residuary Gifts: Intention not precedent"
This post is only available to members.
Sarah Clune examines the Charity Commission’s consultation on rules for total return investment ‘In a total return investment investors can manage their investments to make the most of the return they generate, regardless of whether this comes from dividends, interest or capital gains.’ Significant changes are afoot for permanently endowed charities. Section 4 of the …
Continue reading "Charities: New powers to invest"
This post is only available to members.
Geoffrey Shindler advocates positive action in the light of the Lord Chancellor’s rejection of the Legal Services Board’s recommendations on will writing ‘Unless a significant amount of powerful new evidence is produced, no further regulation will be considered for will writers.’To universal cries of disappointment, but not entirely unsurprisingly, the recommendations made to the Lord …
Continue reading "Musings From Manchester: Speaking with one voice"
This post is only available to members.
Marilyn McKeever discusses the implications of the Supreme Court decision in Futter v Futter and Pitt v Holt ‘The Hastings-Bass jurisdiction applies where the trustee or other person has failed to take into account any relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations and would not have taken the action they did but for that …
Continue reading "Trustees: Back on the right course?"
This post is only available to members.
Imogen Buchan-Smith sets out the key points of the much-anticipated GAAR ‘While the GAAR’s purpose is “the counteraction of tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive”, and the taxes included within its scope are clear, the actual arrangements that the government intends will fall within its ambit may be less so.’The introduction of …
Continue reading "Tax Planning: Curtailing abuse"
This post is only available to members.
Dawn Goodman and Geoffrey Kertesz discuss a case that clarifies the grounds upon which protectors can be removed, and also sounds a note of caution for a common practice in the trust industry Protectors who engage in conduct that is beyond their remit (and perhaps trustee-like in nature) may be placing the entire structure at …
Continue reading "Trust Protectors: Above and beyond the call of duty"
This post is only available to members.
Sharon Kenchington analyses a case that affirms the existence of a judicial ‘safety net’ to protect vulnerable adults who retain capacity so do not fall under the MCA 2005 or the Court of Protection ‘In the Re F decision, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR affirmed the use of the common law as a ‘great safety …
Continue reading "Mental Capacity: Safeguarding adults at risk"
This post is only available to members.
