Rescission: Information overload

David Wilkinson considers a case concerned with the power of the court to vary, suspend, rescind or revive an order made by it Litigants should not be permitted to have ‘two bites at the cherry’ by applying again before the same court in relation to the same matter and there is an important public policy …
This post is only available to members.

Morton v Morton & anr WTLR(w) 2022-05

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

JTC Employer Ser Trustees Ltd v Khadem [2022] WTLR 203

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Spring 2022 #186

Mr Khadem’s employer established a pension plan for him, with HMRC approval, which was tailored for employees who may retire abroad. On his retirement in 2004 he remained in England as his wife continued to work as a consultant and professor. As his wife approached her retirement they discussed where they should live and decided to move to the UAE, which Mr Khadem did in March 2018.

The claimant and Mr Khadem each took tax advice on 12 December 2018. It was to the effect that the UAE only provides a tax domicile certificate covering the period up to the date of the application for...

Ralph v Ralph [2021] WTLR 1443

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2021 #185

The claimant was the son of the defendant. The parties were the registered owners of a residential property. The property was purchased through a mortgage which was obtained using the claimant’s earnings. The defendant paid the balance of the purchase price meaning that the claimant made no contribution. The TR1 was signed by the transferors but not the claimant and defendant as transferees, but nevertheless contained a manuscript cross in Box 11 recording that ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant claimed a ...

South Downs Trustees Ltd v GH [2018] WTLR 673

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Summer 2018 #172

The claimant was the trustee of an employment benefit trust (the EBT). The trustee had an interest in a company that owned and controlled a business (the utility). The beneficiaries of the EBT were the former and current employees of the utility and other group companies and their dependants. The trustee entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the sale of the EBT’s interest in the company, conditional upon certain relief from the court. Following the sale, there would be a distribution of the trust property amongst various beneficiaries.

Held

The fol...

RBC Trustees (CI) Ltd & ors v Stubbs & ors [2018] WTLR 1399

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Winter 2018 #170

The claim was brought to rectify two deeds of revocation and appointment made in 2008 and 2014, or alternatively to rescind them on the grounds of mistake.

Each of the settlor’s adult children had an interest in possession in a one sixth share of the trust fund. In 2004, in order to ensure that no inheritance tax was payable upon their one sixth share of the trust fund as a result of their deaths, the trustees appointed successive life interests for the spouses of two of these children, Michael and Joanna. Unfortunately, both Michael and Joanna’s marriages ended in divorce. The tr...

Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | July/August 2016 #161

The claimants, who were father and son, farmed together in partnership Seamer Grange Farm. They were advised to place this property in trust and that there would be no capital gains tax chargeable on the transfer. The first claimant, who held the legal title, transferred the partnership land to the trustees of a discretionary trust which was created by a trust deed dated 24 June 2011. Unfortunately, the advice which they had been given was incorrect; capital gains tax was exigible on the transfer, amounting to more than £200,000 plus interest and possible penalties. The claimants and def...

Van der Merwe v Goldman & anr [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | June 2016 #160

The claimant and first defendant were husband and wife and joint freehold owners of a property in the UK where they lived. Up until March 2006 the claimant and first defendant were treated as domiciled in South Africa. However, from 6 April 2006 they would be treated as domiciled in the UK for inheritance tax purposes. In November 2005 the claimant took advice on mitigating the consequences of being treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax. He was advised that his position would be improved if he placed the property into an interest in possession settlement.

...