Challinor & ors v Bellis & anr WTLR(w) 2013-07

Web Only

Bowring & anor v Revenue & Customs WTLR(w) 2013-06

Web Only

Stewart & ors v Franks & ors WTLR(w) 2013-05

Web Only

Schedule of Documents Relating to FMH WTLR(w) 2013-04

Web Only

R (on the application of Prudential plc & anr) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & anr WTLR(w) 2013-03

Web Only

Murray Group Holdings & ors v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs WTLR(w) 2013-02

Web Only

Foulser & anr v HMRC WTLR(w) 2013-01

Web Only

Singapore Airlines Ltd & anr v Buck Consultants Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1542

January/February 2013 #126

Singapore Airlines Ltd (SA) brought proceedings against Buck Consultants Ltd (BC) alleging negligence in the drafting by BC of a revised version of the rules of SA’s pension scheme (scheme). A preliminary issue was tried concerning the meaning of ‘earnings’ for the purposes of the scheme. That preliminary issue had to be resolved for the purposes of SA’s negligence claim against BC. However, BC had also been appointed by the court to represent the interests of the members of the scheme on the preliminary issue.

Four issues were appealed by SA. Only Issue 4 ...

Re the Ta-Ming Wang Trust Cause no. FSD 0089 of 2010

January/February 2013 #126

The first plaintiff (TMW) and members of his family are the beneficiaries under the Ta-Ming Wang Trust (the trust). The trust was intended to take advantage of a well-established tax-saving structure under which a foreign national such as TMW immigrating into Canada could obtain a five-year Canadian tax holiday on foreign source income earned by a non-resident company, owned by a non-resident trustee; ie on income by way of dividends paid by the company to the trust during the five-year tax holiday. It was established by a settlement dated 2 May 1996 made between TMW’s mother as settlor ...

Thomas v Jeffery & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 693

January/February 2013 #126

The appellant (Richard) had successfully brought an application for reasonable financial provision from the estate of his late father. This had been initially expressed as a family provision and proprietary estoppel claim for some 50% of the deceased’s estate. The proprietary estoppel claim was dropped but the level of provision claimed under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 remained unaltered.

Richard provided little information on his financial position until directed to do so by the recorder at trial. This late disclosure proved the existenc...