The Public Guardian’s Severance Applications [2017] WTLR 1145
Autumn 2017 #169The Public Guardian brought various consolidated applications for severance under para 11((3) of Schedule 1 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA 2005) in respect of various lasting powers of attorney which were potentially unlawful or ineffective by reason of the operation of s9 MCA 2005, which provides that an LPA is not created unless it is made and registered in accordance with Schedule 1 of para 19.
Held: 1) As to MC, the donor at s7 of the LPA had instructed that ‘Any financial decisions up to the value of £150.00 can be made independently by my attorneys. However any...Vigne v HMRC [2017] WTLR 1193
Autumn 2017 #169The deceased died on 29 May 2012. At the time she was the sole beneficial owner of 30 acres of land (the land) used for carrying out a livery business. The business provided less than ‘part livery’ (ie day-to-day care being shared between the livery operator and horse owner) but more than ‘DIY Livery’ (ie a right to reside in a field plus a stable). For example the business provided worming products for the horses and hay feed during winter months.
The deceased’s personal representatives claimed BPR on the ground that the land was ‘relevant busi...
Cronin v De Hamel [2017] EWHC 454 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168The Brindle Estate near Chorley belonged to Patience Aspinall, who died in 1985. The Estate passed to her sister Honour Ruth (‘Miss Aspinall’) as her executor and sole beneficiary. In the early 1990s, the Brindle Estate was subject to compulsory purchase for the construction of the M65 motorway over the northern part. By February 1994, the Department of Transfer had entered upon the land for the purpose of commencing construction. Miss Aspinall received interim payments on account of the compensation payable to her arising from construction of the M65, in particular, £46,727 in October 1...
J v U; U v J (No. 2) Domicile [2017] EWHC 449 (Fam)
Summer 2017 #168The question before the court was, in the context of divorce proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent, whether either party to the marriage were domiciled in England and Wales. The respondent’s position was that neither were so domiciled, such that the divorce petition of the petitioner should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
At the time of the proceedings the respondent was 72 years old. He was born in Mumbai, India. He moved to London with his family when he was 13 or 14. He studied in England, married and purchased a property in London, and pursued a ...
Littlewood v Morley [2015] CHP 66
Summer 2017 #168L applied pursuant to s8(1) of the Administration of Estates Act 1990 to remove M as her co-executor and co-trustee of the estate of their father. The beneficiaries of the estate were L (50 percent) and M’s two children (50 percent). The estate was modest including some personal chattels, a small bank account and a property worth circa £210,000.
M and his wife had issued a claim against the estate for £170,229, allegedly owed for nursing care provided to the deceased (the litigation).
L averred that M should be removed as trustee due to the ligation producing a clear ...
Newman v Clarke [2016] EWHC 2959 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168On 20 December 1996 the first defendant settled £150,000 on an accumulation and maintenance trust for the benefit of inter alia the second and third claimant (‘the settlement’). On 11 April 1997 a lease of a certain property was granted to the first defendant. This lease was capable of being enfranchised under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (‘the 1967 Act’) such as to enable the first defendant to obtain the freehold interest in the property. On 19 June 1997, the freehold reversion of the lease was sold to the original trustees of the Settlement. On 25 June 1997, t...
O’Keefe v Caner [2017] EWHC 1105 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168This was a trial of the preliminary issue of whether claims made by the joint liquidators of two Jersey-incorporated companies against the respondents were time-barred as a matter of Jersey law.
In the proceedings, the applicants claimed that between 10 April 2007 and 10 June 2008 payments were made of €16m and €18m from ‘Level One’ and ‘Special Opportunity’ respectively, to or for the benefit of the first respondent or companies owned beneficially by him. Those payments were claimed not to have been made in good faith for a legitimate commercial purpose of the companies, and the ...
Pettigrew v Edwards [2017] EWHC 8 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168Veronica Edwards (the deceased) died on 2 April 2003, and her will was proved by the claimants (as her executors and trustees) (the trustees) in October 2003. Under the will, the deceased left her residuary estate to the trustees pay the income to her fourth husband (the defendant) for life, and subject thereto, to the First and Second Claimants (who were also her sons by her first marriage) in equal shares. The residuary estate was valued at £521,897.53, and it included a promissory note signed by the defendant to the deceased in the sum of £100,000. This represented the value of a loan...
Revell v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 97 (TC)
Summer 2017 #168On 10 December 2014, HMRC purported to close an enquiry into the appellant’s self-assessment for the year 2008/2009 by making amendments to the return so as to increase the tax due for that year to £16,518.60. The appellant appealed this decision principally on the basis that HMRC had failed properly to serve on him a request to file a self-assessment return.
HMRC had carried out a reconciliation of the appellant’s PAYE records showing a significant underpayment. HMRC sent a self-assessment return to what it thought was the appellant’s last known address. He did ...
Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair [2016] EWHC 170 (Ch)
Summer 2017 #168This was an application by the defendant firm of solicitors (D) for the particulars of claim and reply to be struck out on the ground that they disclose no answer to the limitation defence or summary judgment dismissing the entirety of the claim on the basis that the claimant (C) has no real prospect of success because the claim is statute barred.
The proceedings arose out of a family dispute concerning a charitable trust (F) established by the deceased (OM). By his will OM left his shares in a Jersey investment company (JY) and in the trustee company of F (YT) to the executors an...