O’Neill v Holland [2020] WTLR 1397

Winter 2020 #181

This was a second appeal against the decision of HHJ Pelling to overturn the trial judge’s order declaring inter alia that A was a 50% beneficial owner of A and R’s former home (the property) under a common intention constructive trust.

The trial judge had found that A’s father had bought the property in 1998 with the intention that it should be A and R’s family home. In 2008, A’s father had transferred the property to R for nil consideration. The trial judge had found that A’s father intended A to have a beneficial interest in it and had originally planned to transfer it into A a...

Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees SA [2020] WTLR 1075

Autumn 2020 #180

The claimant was the intended beneficiary of the Puyol trust (the trust) which was created in discretionary form by Hyman Sofer (the settlor) in July 2006. The defendant was a professional trustee company based in Switzerland. The settlor was added as a ‘specified beneficiary’ while the claimant and other issue of the settlor became ‘general beneficiaries’. The trust included a power for the trustee to lend any money forming part of the trust assets to any beneficiary and there was a prohibition on the trustee paying any part of the capital to any beneficiary prior to the death of the se...

Lehtimaki v CIFF [2018] WTLR 491

Summer 2018 #172

The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (UK) (‘CIFF’) was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee without a share capital on 8 February 2002 with the aim of improving the lives of children in developing countries. It had been founded by two of the respondents, Sir Christopher Hohn and his then wife, Jamie Cooper. Each of them, both of whom were members and trustees, had contributed to the charity’s success. The only other member, though not a trustee, was the Appellant. The present litigation had its origins in the breakdown of the relationship between Sir Christopher Hohn and J...

Dawson-Damer & ors v Taylor Wessing LLP & anr [2018] WTLR 57

Spring 2018 #171

The appellants were beneficiaries of a number of Bahamian trusts; the respondent solicitors (‘TW’) act on behalf of the trustee of these trusts. On 4 August 2014, the appellants served a subject access request (‘SAR’) on TW, requesting disclosure of the personal data relating to the appellants held by TW as the solicitors for the trustee. The appellants were not satisfied by TW’s response to the SAR. They therefore applied to the court to exercise its discretion under s.7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (‘DPA’), and grant a declaration that TW had not complied with t...