Gledhill & anr v Arnold [2015] EWHC 2939 (CH)
May 2016 #159By clause 3 of his will dated 19 August 2011 (2011 will) Eric Arnold (estator) gave his beneficial half share of 1 Sherbuttgate Road, Pocklington (house fund) to the claimants (trustees) upon trusts that conferred a life interest on the defendant with remainder ‘upon the trust hereinafter declared in regard to my residuary estate’. The residuary estate was given to the defendant in absolute terms with a gift over, if she failed to survive the testator, to such of her children and her daughter in law as should be living at his death and if more than one in equal shares absolutely...
Freedman v Freedman & ors [2015] EWHC 1457 (Ch)
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...
University of London v Prag & anr [2014] EWHC 3564 (Ch)
May 2015 #149This decision concerned the construction of a trust deed dated 28 November 1944 (the deed) made between Eric Max Warburg on behalf of the Warburg family, Viscount Lee of Fareham on behalf of the Warburg Society, and the University of London (UOL). There arose questions about the scope of the deed, the ownership of property, the status of funding and the propriety of the administration by UOL under the deed. UOL brought a construction summons to determine these questions at the behest of HM Attorney General (the second defendant). The first defendant was Professor John Prag, of the Univer...
Santander UK PLC v R.A. Legal Solicitors [2014] EWCA Civ 183
June 2014 #140Abbey National Building Society (now Santander UK PLC) (A) agreed to lend £150,000 to an individual (V) for the purpose of purchasing a property subject to taking a first legal charge. RA Legal Solicitors (R) conducted the conveyancing, acting for both V and A. The vendor’s solicitors (S) were a real firm but acted dishonestly, falsely representing that they acted for the vendor. On 17 July 2009 A transferred £150,000 (plus fees) to RA’s bank account. S notified an account to which the completion monies should be sent and on 28 July 2009 S purported to exchange and complete and RA arrang...
Buzzoni & ors v HMRCC [2012] UKUT 360 (TCC)
January/February 2013 #126On 5 June 1996 Mrs Kamhi purchased a lease (the headlease) of a flat in Knightsbridge, London. On 21 November 1997 Mrs Kamhi granted an underlease (the underlease) to Ovalap Nominees Ltd. The underlease was granted without rent or premium being payable. On the same day Mrs Kamhi created by deed a settlement. The trustee was Legis Trust Ltd and the trust property was the underlease. Ovalap entered into the underlease as bare nominee for Legis Trust Ltd.
On 24 March 2004 Parkside (Knightsbridge) Residents Ltd then granted Mrs Kamhi a new lease over the flat commencing 1 April 2003. ...
Marley v Rawlings & anr [2012] WTLR 639
May 2012 #119Alfred Thomas Rawlings (H) and Maureen Catherine Rawlings (W) were husband and wife who, on 17 May 1999, signed mirror wills leaving their entire estate to each other or, if the other failed to survive, to the appellant who was treated as their son. The respondents, who were their natural sons, were excluded but stood to benefit on intestacy if the wills were invalid. In the event, by mistake H signed W’s will and W signed H’s will but the error was not noticed then, or on the death of W. It was only noticed after the death of H in August 2006 when a dispute arose as to whether the estat...
Hubbard & anr v Scott & ors [2011] EWHC 2750 (Ch)
January/February 2012 #116The claimants were default beneficiaries who, in the event, stood to benefit under the terms of the will of Albert Wiseman (testator) dated 25 November 1997. They and their mother, who were longstanding friends of the testator, visited him at his home after the death of his wife. However, their visits tailed off during the last years of his life and, at some stage after May 2006, a neighbour introduced the testator, then aged 84, to the third defendant who initially worked for him as a cleaner. There was a dispute of fact as to whether this occurred over three years or under three months...