Santander UK PLC v RA Legal Soliciors [2013] EWHC 1380 (QB)
April 2014 #138Abbey 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 arrange...
The Vegetarian Society v Scott [2013] EWHC 4097 (Ch)
April 2014 #138This was a contentious probate action against all five of the wills of a schizophrenic testator. While he had benefitted from a stable and conventional childhood, the deceased had sustained serious injuries at the age of nineteen in a serious bicycle accident. He soon after succumbed to the symptoms of severe schizophrenia and logical thought disorder, from which he suffered for the remainder of his lifetime. His modes of living were unconventional. He lived alone on the fringes of society, and despite his considerable wealth, he lived in basic, if not squalid conditions. While it was ac...
Wagstaff & anr v HMRC [2014] UKFTT 43 (TC)
April 2014 #138During 1990 Mr Wagstaff’s mother (Barbara) bought a flat for herself to live in (the flat). On 6 January 1996 she sold the flat to the appellants for £45,000. It was agreed that this was an arm’s length price. The sale was subject to the terms of an agreement of the same date (the agreement). The agreement provided that Barbara was entitled to continue to live at the flat at no cost until her death or remarriage, subject to a payment of £5,000.
Barbara continued to occupy the property until August 2005 when an accident meant she could no longer do so. After some time ...
Holden-Hindley & ors v Holden-Hindley & anr [2013] EWHC 3053 (Ch)
March 2014 #137The trustees of two family settlements applied to the court for authorisation of action that they proposed to take. David Holden-Hindley created the No 7 Settlement in 1973 for the benefit of his children, issue, his sister-in-law and her children and his sister Doreen Hindley and her children and issue. His brother Airlie set up a similar trust the No 9 Settlement in 1975 but only his children and those of his sister Doreen were beneficiaries. In both settlements illegitimate children were excluded.
In 1983 two deeds of appointments were made under the two settlements for the ben...
Re Jewell; Fox & anr v Jewell & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1152
March 2014 #137A probate claim was brought in respect of the will of the aforesaid deceased for testamentary incapacity; want of knowledge and approval; rectification; a kind of mutual wills claim and in proprietary estoppel. HHJ McCahill QC held that the parties should be required to deal with each of the wills issues in comparatively short statements, without going back over the decades of family history, which would be necessary for a proprietary estoppel claim. He said that he was persuaded that there was a proper role for a trial of preliminary issues, with the second trial, if necessary, dea...
Mariner v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 657 (TC)
March 2014 #137Income tax;careless or negligent completion of income tax return;reliance on a professional advisor;reasonable excuse for careless or negligent completion of return.
Elizabeth Mariner (the appellant) instructed a professional tax advisor to complete and file her 2011 income tax return with HMRC. She was making losses on a let property. The return set these losses against her income from other sources. HMRC did not accept that the losses could be ‘set-off’ in this way. A penalty for underpaid tax as the result of the careless or negligent completion of a return was issu...
Marley v Rawlings & anr [2014] WTLR 299
March 2014 #137Mr Alfred Rawlings and his wife Maureen Rawlings instructed a solicitor to draft their wills in mirror form. Each spouse intended to leave his or her entire estate to the survivor of them, but provided that, should the other have predeceased or survived them for less than a month, their estates should be left to the appellant, who was not related to them but whom they treated as their son. Mr and Mrs Rawlings’ solicitor attended them on 17 May 1999 to enable a due execution of draft wills containing these provisions. By an oversight, their solicitor gave each spouse the other’s draft wil...
Petterson v Ross & ors [2013] EWHC 2724 (Ch)
March 2014 #137Mrs Ross, the testatrix, (T) had three adult children, the defendants: Diana (D), Lorenzo (L) and Gianni (G). T died on 13 July 2008 leaving a will dated 21 October 1988 (the will). At her death T held the following assets:
a) 13 Kensington Gardens, Ferryhill, County Durham (13KG) where D had lived until she moved in with her partner. At T’s death the property was worth £125,000 but subject to a mortgage with £50,401.52 outstanding. 13KG was bequeathed to D ‘free from any mortgage or legal charge to which the same may be subject at the date of my death’. The prope...Re Po; Jo v Go & ors [2013] EWHC 3932 (COP)
March 2014 #137PO was 88 years of age and lacked capacity to decide where she should live. She had four children, the applicant (JO), and the first, second and third respondents (GO, RO and MP). GO and RO were PO’s attorneys for property and affairs but no power of attorney or deputyship order was extant for welfare decisions.
Until the events giving rise to this application PO was habitually resident in England and Wales, living in her own property in Worcestershire with family and local authority assistance. However, in April 2012, GO moved PO to Scotland, initially to live with him but...
Rosenbaum (dec’d) v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 495 (TC)
March 2014 #137The appellant filed a paper tax return late and was liable to a penalty but appealed, arguing that it was merely intended to be a copy of a tax return subsequently filed online and in time. The respondent’s proposition was accepted that a subsequent online timely filing of a tax return by 31 January did not relieve a taxpayer, who had filed a valid paper tax return after 31 October, from a penalty. However, although the nature of the paper document which had been filed was in dispute and central to the issues between the parties, the respondent, on whom the burden of proof lay, fai...