Re Arpettaz Settlement [2021] WTLR 1171
Winter 2021 #185The settlement, a discretionary trust governed by the law of Jersey, was established on 18 July 2011 (the settlement). The settlor, then the chairman of an oil exploration company, originally settled £35,000. Subsequently, a further sum of $15m was settled by the settlor’s wife on 12 February 2012. The principal beneficiary, who was the chief executive officer of the oil company, and the immediate members of his family were the beneficiaries of the settlement. The second to fifth respondents (the English claimants) issued proceedings in the English High Court against the settlor, allegin...
Banks v Commissioners for HMRC [2021] WTLR 1193
Winter 2021 #185Between 7 October 2014 and 31 March 2015, the appellant (T) made 14 political donations to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its youth wing known as Young Independence. The donations had a total value of £976,781.38. Some were made in T’s personal capacity, others through a company of which T was indirectly sole beneficial owner.
UKIP was a limited company registered as a political party. In the 2014 European Parliamentary Election, UKIP won 24 seats and 26.6% of the UK popular vote, making it the most successful UK party on both measures. However it was less succes...
Clyne v Conlon & ors [2021] WTLR 1231
Winter 2021 #185By his will dated 8 March 2016 (the will) Patrick Conlon (the testator) appointed the claimant, who was his niece, and her sister as executrices and divided his net residuary estate equally between the claimant and his three sons, the defendants. Probate of the will was granted on 19 October 2018 in respect to a net estate of about £516,000. The claimant’s sister was removed as an executrix by an order dated 26 October 2020. The first defendant, who had previously been in business with his father, claimed to be beneficially entitled to one half of 168 Headstone Drive, Harrow and the whol...
Dixon Coles & Gill v Baines & anr [2021] WTLR 1247
Winter 2021 #185The appellant was a firm of solicitors. The respondents were, respectively, the Bishop and Diocesan Board of Finance of the Diocese of Leeds, into which had been absorbed the Diocese of Wakefield, which in turn had been a client of the appellant firm. The firm had acted for the Diocese in a number of conveyancing transactions during the course of their instructions. It was subsequently discovered by one of the firm’s three partners that another partner, Mrs Box, had over the course of many years made unauthorised payments from the firm’s client account, and had misappropriated millions o...
Face v Cunningham & anr [2021] WTLR 1261
Winter 2021 #185The claimant brought a claim to propound an alleged lost will of her late father (the 2017 will) against her sister (the first defendant) and her elder brother (the second defendant). The defendants alleged that the 2017 will, which was propounded on the basis of what was claimed to be a photocopy of it, was a forgery and that consequently the deceased died intestate. Expert evidence as to the genuineness of the alleged signature of the deceased to the 2017 will was inconclusive. The alleged witnesses to the 2017 will gave evidence.
The second defendant counterclaimed for a declar...
Lonsdale v Teasdale & ors [2021] WTLR 1309
Winter 2021 #185The claimant was the daughter of the deceased. The deceased had made a will dated 15 September 2017 of which the residuary beneficiary was D1, a friend of the deceased. A letter of intent stated that the claimant was not to benefit. The claimant, relying on medical evidence which included a poor score in a cognitive impairment screening test and a letter from the deceased’s GP opining that the deceased had likely suffered from dementia for a number of years before executing the 2017 will, challenged the 2017 will on the basis of a lack of testamentary capacity due to memory issues, and D...
Marlborough DP Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC [2021] WTLR 1329
Winter 2021 #185Marlborough DP Ltd (MDPL) operated a dental practice, through which a Dr Thomas, its director and sole shareholder, provided dental services. It had instituted a ‘remuneration trust’ (RT), which it had stated to be for the benefit of persons who had provided or might in the future provide services, custom or products to MDPL. MDPL made ‘contributions’ to the RT which were said to reflect ‘part of the economic cost to [MDPL] of earning its profits’. MDPL then deducted its contributions to the RT as business expenses in computing its profits for accounting purposes, and claimed deductions ...
Mazzoleni v Summerhill Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd [2021] WTLR 1409
Winter 2021 #185In 1994, by a series of trust deeds, Mrs Pesenti established four settlements in the Isle of Man known as the RR1, RR2, RR3 and RR4 Trusts, each of which was for the benefit of one of her children and his/her heirs. The RR2 Trust (the trust), which alone formed the subject of this case, took as its beneficiaries the appellant and her issue born before the perpetuity date, together with two named charities. The dispositive provisions of the trust required the trustees to hold the trust fund and its income on discretionary trusts for all or such one or more exclusively of the others or oth...
Petition by Vindex Trustees Ltd [2021] WTLR 1437
Winter 2021 #185The will and codicils of the late Estelle Brownrigg contained a gift of a portion of the residue of her estate to a charity named as the ‘Nelson Mandela Educational Fund, South Africa’. Despite an extensive search, nothing could be found to suggest that any charity with that name had ever existed. The sole executor of her estate petitioned for directions from the court as to whether the petitioner as executor could distribute a portion of the deceased’s residual estate to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, on the basis that the fact that no charity with the specified name had ever exist...
Ralph v Ralph [2021] WTLR 1443
Winter 2021 #185The claimant was the son of the defendant. The parties were the registered owners of a residential property. The property was purchased through a mortgage which was obtained using the claimant’s earnings. The defendant paid the balance of the purchase price meaning that the claimant made no contribution. The TR1 was signed by the transferors but not the claimant and defendant as transferees, but nevertheless contained a manuscript cross in Box 11 recording that ‘the transferees are to hold the property on trust for themselves as tenants in common in equal shares’. The claimant claimed a ...