Matthews v HMRCC
January/February 2013 #126The late Mrs Matthews (D) invested approximately £95,000 in a Building Society account with her son, the claimant, John Matthews (M) in 1999. The words ‘either signature’ were included in the special instructions for operation of the account. Between 1999 and 19 January 2007 when D died there were no withdrawals from the account and both D and M included half the interest on their tax returns. M claimed that D intended to make an immediate gift of the moneys in the account to him on the date it was opened and that he could have used that money for what ever purpose he wished,...
Pankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ 1438
January/February 2013 #126The claimant appealed from the decision of Judge Charles Harris QC to dismiss his claim seeking an order for sale of 7 Cossington Street, Leicester (the property) and the division of the sale proceeds in equal shares between him and the defendant. A declaration had been made by the judge that beneficial ownership of the property was vested solely in the defendant, despite the property having been conveyed into the joint names of the claimant and defendant. A simultaneous express declaration of trust had been made in the transfer declaring that the parties were to hold the property as ten...
Silber v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 700 (TC)
January/February 2013 #126By his will dated 12 May 1997, Martin Moses Menachem Lerner (deceased) divided his net residuary estate into ten equal shares between the appellant as to nine shares and the Chay Charitable Trust (CCT) as to one share. Subsequently, the deceased gifted £60,000 cash to the appellant and transferred in excess of £400,000 worth of quoted shares to the CCT. Following the deceased’s death on 21 October 1999, a disappointed beneficiary under a former will disputed the validity of the last will on the grounds of testamentary incapacity, but this was settled on 22 October 2001 on terms tha...
Singapore Airlines Ltd & anr v Buck Consultants Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1542
January/February 2013 #126Singapore 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 ...