Curtis & ors v Pulbrook & ors [2009] EWHC 782 (Ch)
November 2011 #114The claimants were the step-children of Arthur Ronald Towns (Mr Towns). Mr Towns had commenced the claim on 5 October 2007 and had died on 3 June 2008. The claimants were substituted for Mr Towns on 3 September 2008 as executors of his estate. Repayment was sought of sums totalling £127,000 said to have been withdrawn by the first defendant (Henry Pulbrook) from an account in the joint names of Mr Towns and his late wife Edith Anne Towns (Mrs Towns). The claimants were Mrs Towns’ children from her first marriage.
Each of the claimants and the defendants was a descendant of ...
Drake v Harvey & ors [2011] EWCA Civ 838
November 2011 #114Mr and Mrs H, their son A and their daughter F were partners in a partnership engaged in farming. The partnership was governed by a partnership deed dated 14 February 1989. One of the assets of the farming partnership was farmland worth approximately £5.5m. Mr and Mrs H ceased to be partners as a result of their loss of mental capacity. They have since died. A ceased to be a partner on his death and therefore F was the only surviving partner.
The partnership capital was originally divided into A and B capital and additional capital. By clause 6 of the partnership deed, A capital h...
Hok v HRCC [2011] UKFTT 433 (TC)
November 2011 #114On 27 September 2010 HMRC sent H Ltd a penalty notice in the sum of £400 on the basis that H Ltd had failed to file its employer’s end of year annual returns by 19 May 2010. The penalty was calculated at £100 per month for four months. On 21 October 2010 a further penalty notice in the sum of £100 was issued given that the necessary filing had taken place on 15 October 2010 once H Ltd had been alerted to its default.
H Ltd acknowledged that it did not comply with the duty to file the returns. It did so because it believed that as its only employee had ceased employment part ...
Mason & ors v Mills & Reeve [2011] EWHC 410 (Ch)
November 2011 #114Christopher Swain (C) built up a very successful business and held 72% of the shares in a group of companies in which each of his four daughters also held 5.3% of the shares. He was advised by a small firm of chartered accountants who prepared tax returns for him, the company and the family trusts and at times for each of his daughters and by a small firm of solicitors who prepared his will, dated 17 January 2006. C decided to sell his company to the management and to use Mills & Reeve, a large full-service law firm (the firm) to advise him and his daughters on the MBO. In June 2006 ...
Morris v Davies & ors [2011] EWHC 1773 (Ch)
November 2011 #114Owen Robert Treharne Davies (deceased), by his last will, dated 30 March 1996, appointed the claimant and his girlfriend as executors and, subject to a letter of wishes concerning the administration of his affairs, left his entire estate to an uncle, the fifth defendant. At that time, the deceased had fallen out with most members of his family over a dispute concerning the administration of his grandfather’s estate. Their religious views were divergent and he did not want them to be involved in his affairs or funeral after his death. He was then working for Land Rover in England and had ...
Moriarty v BA Peters [2008] EWCA Civ 1604
November 2011 #114
BA Peters plc (the company) carried on a business consisting of activities connected with boats, including their sale or purchase both on its own account and as broker for clients. It operated two bank accounts – client and current. When the company went into administration on 14 August 2007 its current account was substantially overdrawn but there was a balance on its client account amounting to £850,544.44. KPMG LLP, whose employees were the joint administrators, concluded on an analysis of the client account that the payments in originated either from sums received on be...
Barclays v HMRC [2011] EWCA Civ 810
November 2011 #114The trustees (the bank) appealed from the decision of Vos J to dismiss an appeal against a determination by HMRC. HMRC had decided that the residuary estates of Constance and William Poppleston were to be treated as if they were part of the estate of Edwin Poppleston (the son of Constance and William) because s89 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (the Act) required Edwin to be treated as if he had an interest in possession in each of them. If Edwin was not to be treated as if he had such interests in possession then HMRC was liable to repay the bank £158,963 with interest.
Edwin wa...