Chaston v Chaston [2018] WTLR 391
Summer 2018 #172The parties were three of the four children of Sybil and John Chaston (‘the parents’). They inherited from their parents a freehold property (‘the Property’). The Property was currently held by the Appellants and the Respondent upon trust for the Respondent as to 50%, and as to 25% for each of the two Appellants.
In proceedings brought under s14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 the District Judge ordered that the Property should be sold to the Respondent at a price to be determined by a valuation exercise.
The hearing before the District Judge ...
Davies v Morris [2018] WTLR 405
Summer 2018 #172The defendant in the present claim had brought a probate action in respect of the will of the deceased; the claimants in the present claim were defendants in the probate action. In the course of the probate action the judge made an order in a preliminary application for the determination of the deceased’s domicile at his death. It had been the present defendant’s position that the deceased had retained his domicile of origin in England and Wales, whereas the present claimants had argued that he had acquired a domicile of choice in Belgium, so that under Belgian law the will was void as a...
Gestrust SA v Sixteen Defendants [2018] WTLR 421
Summer 2018 #172The claimant was the sole corporate trustee of a trust created by a deed of settlement dated 5 November 1963 and made by a settlor for the benefit of his four children and their respective spouses and descendants. The defendants were two of the settlor’s surviving children, the widows of two deceased children and descendants to the fourth generation. As a result of deeds of appointment made on 28 March 1979 and 31 December 1982, each of the settlor’s four children became entitled to a life interest in their respective one-quarter shares of the trust fund, with reversionary life interes...
Haastrup & anr v Haastrup & anr [2018] WTLR 445
Summer 2018 #172The second defendant company was the registered proprietor of property in England. It was dissolved in 2003, and the property was subsequently sold by the Crown as bona vacantia in July 2012. In October 2012 the deceased, who had been the sole shareholder and director of the second defendant, died. The first claimant claimed to be his widow and a beneficiary upon intestacy. The second claimant was the deceased’s son and beneficiary of a will. The first defendant claimed to be the son of the deceased, but paternity was disputed.
In 2013 the first defendant applied to restore the co...
R (Haworth) v HMRC [2018] WTLR 459
Summer 2018 #172On an application for judicial review, the claimant challenged the decisions of HMRC to issue him with a follower notice and an accelerated payment notice in relation to gains arising to the Trustees of a settlement (‘the Trust’) from the disposal of assets. The claimant was the settlor and, along with his family, a beneficiary of the Trust. The notices were issued under Part 4 of the Finance Act 2014.
A follower notice can be given where the principles laid down or reasoning given in a final judicial ruling would, if applied to the taxpayer’s chosen arrangements, deny him the cl...
Lehtimaki v CIFF [2018] WTLR 491
Summer 2018 #172The 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...
Lloyd v Ayres [2018] WTLR 521
Summer 2018 #172The deceased died in January 2008 and letters of administration were granted later that month. The deceased’s death was unexpected, and within a year of her remarriage to the defendant A, which had revoked her previous will leaving her property to her previous spouse and her children. The claimant, L, a son of the deceased, was 17 when the deceased died, and had some mental health difficulties. He was permitted to continue to live in the deceased’s home with his brother and A for some years, until 2014. L was an in-patient in a mental hospital for a time during 2015, and first sought leg...
McCallum-Toppin & anr v McCallum-Toppin & ors [2018] WTLR 531
Summer 2018 #172A member of the company died in 2006, leaving his shares by his will to be held on trust. In 2007 the first petitioner and one other executor and trustee took out a grant. In 2014 the second executor and trustee was replaced by an order under s.50 Administration of Justice Act 1985.
By a deed dated 14 July 2015 the replacement executor and trustee himself retired as trustee and was replaced by the second petitioner. That deed did not expressly vest any assets in the new trustee, nor was there any evidence before the court that the deceased’s shares had been vested in the trustees ...
Meritus Trust Company v Butterfield Trust Ltd [2018] WTLR 545
Summer 2018 #172The Plaintiff (Meritus) was removed as the trustee of two trusts and replaced by the Defendant (Butterfield). Meritus applied by Originating Summons for an order that Butterfield transfer immediately all the assets of those trusts (the E Trust and the M Trust). Butterfield asserted, first, that it was entitled to retain sufficient trust assets against which to enforce its indemnity in relation to its contingent cost liability (estimated at $5 million) in relation to a threatened claim in respect of Butterfield’s management of the trust assets; second, that it was entitled to a contra...
Millar & anr v Millar & ors [2018] WTLR 563
Summer 2018 #172By a lifetime settlement dated 7 December 2005 two sisters settled property on trust as to income for their father during his lifetime and as to capital for themselves if living at the end of the trust period, or their issue if not. The trustees also had a power of appointment in favour of a class of beneficiaries which included the settlors.
However, clause 13 provided that “No discretion or power conferred on the Trustees or any other person by this Deed or by law shall be exercised, and no provision of this Deed shall operate directly or indirectly, so as to cause or permit any...