Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd v Halabi [2022] WTLR 55
Spring 2023 #190The Privy Council determined appeals from the Jersey Court of Appeal (the Jersey appeal) and from the Guernsey Court of Appeal (the Guernsey appeal) concerning the rights of indemnity of successive trustees against the assets of trusts governed by Jersey law, whose assets were insufficient to meet in full the liabilities incurred by their trustees.
The Jersey appeal
The original sole trustee of two Jersey trusts settled by the late Madam Intisar Nouri was Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd (Equity Trust). Equity Trust was later replaced as sole trustee by Volaw Corporate Trustee L...
Commissioners for HMRC v Parry & ors [2020] WTLR 1151
Winter 2020 #181The appellants were the three executors of Mrs Staveley’s estate, two of whom were also her sons. Mrs Staveley held a pension scheme on which she had decided never to draw, with the aim of maximising the death benefit that would accrue to her sons under the scheme. Under the terms of her will, her estate was to be held on trust for her two sons in equal shares. Shortly prior to her death Mrs Staveley had transferred funds from her existing pension scheme into a new personal pension plan (PPP). The motives out of which she had done so were contested between the parties, the appellants all...
Lehtimäki & ors v Cooper [2020] WTLR 967
Autumn 2020 #180H and C were two directors and trustees of a charitable company limited by guarantee. They, together with L, were the members of the company. In July 2015 H and C agreed that, subject to the approval of the Charity Commission or the court, C would resign as a director and member of the company and the company would make a grant of $360m to a charity founded by C.
Companies Act 2006, s217 provides that:
‘A company may not make a payment for loss of office to a director of the company unless the payment has been approved by a resolution of the members of ...
Rangers v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] WTLR 1093
Autumn 2017 #169The appeal concerned a tax avoidance scheme by which employers paid remuneration to their employees through an employees’ remuneration trust in the hope that the scheme would avoid liability to income tax and Class 1 national insurance contributions. The question on appeal was whether an employee’s remuneration was taxable as their emoluments or earnings when it was paid to a third party in circumstances in which the employee had no prior entitlement to receive it himself or herself.
The employing companies, including RFC, operated the tax avoidance scheme in the tax years between...
Akita Holdings v Turks and Caicos Islands [2017] UKPC 7
Summer 2017 #168Mr H was a ‘belonger’ (a citizen of the Turks and Caicos Islands) and appointed as a government minister in 2003, remaining in government until 2008. There was a policy entitling a belonger to apply for a conditional purchase lease over Crown Land subject to certain conditions which, if met, entitled the belonger to purchase the freehold title at a discounted rate, in this case of 50% of the open market value.
In 2004, Mr H applied for a lease and in setting the sale price the government relied on a 1998 valuation of the land resulting in a discounted price of $75,200. Unknown to ...
In the matter of the Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill UKPC 16
September 2016 #162This was a referral to the Privy Council under s4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, under which the Queen can refer matters to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for advice. On this reference, the Privy Council was asked to advise as to (i) who was entitled to be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage as the Baronet of Pringle of Stichill; and (ii) whether DNA evidence resulting from the obtaining of a DNA sample from the tenth baronet (Sir Steuart Robert Pringle) in late 2009 or early 2010 should be admitted in order to determine the first question.<...
Crociani & ors v Crociani & ors [2014] UKPC 40
July/August 2015 #151By a trust deed dated 24 December 1987 (trust deed) Edoarda Crociani (settlor) settled a promissory note on herself and others for the benefit of her daughters, Cristiana Crociani (Cristiana) and Princess Camilla de Bourbon des Deux Siciles. The trust deed conferred extensive powers on the trustees in respect of both capital and income, including power to pay the whole or any part of the trust funds to another trust. Originally, it was provided that the forum for the administration of the trust and its construction should be governed by the law of the Bahamas. Clause 12(6), howe...
Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited & ors [2014] UKSC 52
July/August 2015 #151The appeal arose from one of what were originally ten test cases in which the defendant home owners (the vendors) were persuaded to sell their properties to purchasers (the purchasers) who promised the vendors the right to remain in their homes after the sale. The purchasers bought the homes with the assistance of mortgages from lenders (the lenders), who were not given notice of the promises to the vendors. Neither the rights of occupation promised by the purchasers to the vendors nor the tenancies granted by the purchasers were permitted by the lenders’ mortgage. Exchange of contracts ...
King & anr v Gershon Robertson (St Vincent and the Grenadines) [2014] UKPC 34
June 2015 #150The appeal arose out of a disputed claim to land.
In 1856 or 1857 W, who had been seised of land in fee simple, died. His will set out to leave a life interest in the land to his widow and thereafter to his four named children and after them to five named grandchildren. One of those grandchildren had (at least) two sons, E and B.
The respondent, G, was the grandson of B.
The appellants, K and R, derived their title from the other son E. In 1947, E had made a will asserting that he was the freehold owner of the land, it having devolved upon him as the heir at law of W...
AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58
March 2015 #147The appellant bank instructed the respondent solicitors to act in relation to a £3.3m re-mortgage on behalf of themselves and the borrowers. The borrowers’ property (the property) was already subject to a first charge in favour of Barclays. A part of the respondent’s instructions was to redeem the outstanding Barclays mortgage and to secure a first charge against the property in the appellant’s favour.
Due to an oversight, the respondents paid only £1,23m of the outstanding £1.5m Barclays loan and then transferred the balance to the borrowers. Having realised their error, the resp...