Membership
Join
About Itpa
The Committee
Directory of Services
Directory of Members
Useful Links
Conferences
Monte Carlo March 2025
Monaco Booking Form
Summaries of Presentations
Transcripts of Presentations
Library
Portfolio of Laws
International Trust Cases
Topic Articles and Publications
Yearbook
Yearbook Archive
Guide to Presentations
Contact
Search
Sign In
gear01
gear02
gear03
gear04
gear05
gear06
gear07
gear08
gear09
gear10
gear11
gear12
gear13
gear14
gear15
gear16
gear17
gear18
gear19
gear20
gear21
gear22
gear23
gear24
gear25
gear26
gear27
gear28
gear29
gear30
gear31
gear32
gear33
gear34
gear35
gear36
gear37
gear38
gear39
gear40
gear41
gear42
gear43
gear44
home/
/
library
/
international trust cases /
England
England
You must sign in before downloading any documents from the international trust cases
Cases :
ABACUS TRUST v. BARR
[2003] EWHC 114 (Ch)
A useful review of the ambit of the rule in Hastings-Bass, examining whether a flawed decision may be regarded not avoids but as voidable.
ABACUS TRUST v. BARR
Download
ABACUS v. NSPCC
3 ITELR 846
A useful authority for the trustee who has made a mistake. If the trustee in this case had taken proper account of the tax consequences of the appointment it made, it would not have done so. The Court set aside the appointment.
ABACUS v. NSPCC
Download
AGIP (AFRICA) v. JACKSON and others
[1992] 4 All ER 385/451
A bank’s chief accountant fraudulently altered the plaintiff’s payment order (one of many) in favour of a company owned and controlled by the first, second and third defendants who paid the money into their firm’s account. The plaintiff’s funds could be traced in equity as trust property.
AGIP (AFRICA) v. JACKSON and others
Download
AIB v REDLER
[2014] UKSC 53
The trust on which the solicitors held money were part of the machinery used in a commercial transaction, and the equitable compensation due on breach should be the same as if damages for breach of contract were sought at common law.
AIB v REDLER
Download
AIR JAMAICA LTD v. CHARLTON
[1995] 1 All ER 431
The interesting part of this (not otherwise very interesting) case is that it applies the rules against perpetuities to a pension scheme by regarding the addition of each employee as the occasion of a separate settlement for his benefit
AIR JAMAICA LTD v. CHARLTON
Download
AKERS v SAMBA FINANCIAL GROUP
[2017] UK SC 6
A transfer of the legal interest by a bare trustee in breach of trust confers no beneficial interest upon the transferee and is therefore not a “disposition” by the beneficiary for the purposes of s127 of the Insolvency Act.
AKERS v SAMBA FINANCIAL GROUP
Download
ALSOP WILKINSON v. NEARY
2 ITELR 244
Should trustees defend the trust fund against a claim brought by a creditor of the settlor to set aside the trust? The trustees in this case failed to get the blessing of Lightman J (a judge somewhat noted for his surprising decisions) refusing the trustees’ application on the grounds that it was not in the right form.
ALSOP WILKINSON v. NEARY
Download
ARMITAGE v. NURSE
[1997] 2 All ER 705
An exculpation clause in a settlement may exempt a trustee for all loss or damage to the trust fund not caused by his dishonesty, “no matter how indolent, imprudent, lacking in diligence, negligent or wilful he may have been.”
ARMITAGE v. NURSE
Download
BARLOW CLOWES v. EUROTRUST
[2005] UKPC 37
A dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental condition, but the test of dishonesty is objective. (Royal Brunei and Twinsectra considered.)
BARLOW CLOWES v. EUROTRUST
Download
BARTLETT v. BARCLAY’S BANK TRUST CO
[1980] 1 All ER 139
Sir Herbert was a well-known figure at the Garrick Club and may not posthumously be pleased to have given the family name to a leading case. The publicity may not be pleasing to Barclays either. But the case is hugely important – especially in the offshore world, where a trust with an “underlying” company is a common structure.Barclays were trustees of a settlement made by Sir Herbert in 1920. They owned a company (“BTL”) – a holding company (“BTH”) being interposed later – which lost money in a property development scheme (the “Old Bailey project”), though it fortuitously made a profit on another one in Guildford.
BARTLETT v. BARCLAY’S BANK TRUST CO
Download
BIEBER v TEATHERS
[2012] EWHC 190 (Ch)
Investors in a failed, tax-driven, investment vehicle claimed (unsuccessfully) that the subscription money was held on resulting trusts for them. Twinsectra v. Yardley (q.v.) applied.
BIEBER v TEATHERS
Download
BOGG v. RAPER
(1998/99) 1 ITELR 267
Another attack on an exculpation clause, this time on the grounds that such clause in a will benefited the solicitor who drafted it and that to put such a clause in the will was a breach of his fiduciary duty to the testator. The plaintiffs were successful at first instance but lost in the Court of Appeal.
BOGG v. RAPER
Download
BREADNER v. GRANVILLE-GROSSMAN
[2001] Ch 523
In a long but (as may be expected from a former pupil of your editor) highly lucid judgment, Park J held that the rule in Hastings-Bass (infra) only enabled the Court to avoid something the trustees had done, not to hold effective something they had not done.
BREADNER v. GRANVILLE-GROSSMAN
Download
BURRELL v. BURRELL
[2005] EWHC 245 (Ch)
Another application of the Hastings-Bass principle.
BURRELL v. BURRELL
Download
CANADA TRUST v. STOLZENBERG
1 OFLR 606
The facts are numerous and the judgment long. The Plaintiffs alleged that they had been defrauded of large sums and they wanted information from one of the defendants – a Mr. Banziger – about the whereabouts of assets, some of them held in a Swiss bank account and some by a Liechtenstein Anstalt and Liechtenstein Company. Mr. Benziger submitted that the disclosure of the information would amount to the disclosure of a business secret, which would be an offence under Swiss and Liechtenstein law. The Judge took that into account but it did not prevent him from making an order for the disclosure of the information.
CANADA TRUST v. STOLZENBERG
Download
charman v. charman (No. 2)
[2007] EWCA Civ 503
The assets of an offshore trust of which the settlor is the primary beneficiary are part of the settlor’s “resources” to be taken into account in dividing assets between parties to a divorce.
charman v. charman (No. 2)
Download
COWAN v. SCARGILL
[2014] UKPC 40
The parties were trustees of a mineworkers’ pension scheme. Those nominated by the National Union of Mineworkers (including, and represented before the Court by, an – at the time – well-known figure, Mr Arthur Scargill) wanted to prohibit investment overseas and investment in energies competitive with coal. The Court held, not surprisingly that such a prohibition would conflict with the overriding duty of the trustees to act in the best interest of their beneficiaries. The case is a milestone in the history of the decline of trades union power in Britain in the 1980’s, but the judgement deserves its place here, because it usefully surveys the principles involved and the authorities from which they are to be derived.
COWAN v. SCARGILL
Download
CROCIANI V CROCIANI
[1985] Ch 270
A provision that the forum for the administrations of a trust shall be in a certain country does not necessarily mean that the courts of that country are to have jurisdiction to decide how the trust’s affairs are to be conducted.
CROCIANI V CROCIANI
Download
DAWSON-DAMER v TAYLOR WESSING [2017] EWCA Civ 74.
The startling part of this decision is that a beneficiary unable to obtain information from trustees under the general law could obtain it under the Data Protection Act.
DAWSON-DAMER v TAYLOR WESSING [2017] EWCA Civ 74.
Download
FINERS v. MIRO
[1991] 1 All ER 182
The plaintiffs were the defendant’s solicitors. They suspected that assets they held on his behalf were the proceeds of fraud and might be claimed by the liquidator of an insurance company in Louisiana (“Insurance”). The Court authorised the plaintiff to freeze the assets and notify the liquidator, but nevertheless to release $100,000 to the defendant to meet his legal expenses in the United States.
FINERS v. MIRO
Download
FOSKETT v. McKEOWN
[2000] 2 WLR 1299
In 1988 a number of purchasers entrusted a total of £2.6m. to M. and an associate for a property development scheme in Portugal on terms that within two years the developed plots would be conveyed to the purchasers or their money repaid with interest. The scheme was never carried out. M., in breach of trust, used some £20,440 of the purchasers’ money to pay two annual premiums for 1989 and 1990 on a whole life insurance policy effected in 1986. There was a dispute as to the extent to which he used trust moneys to pay the premium for 1988. In 1989 M. divested himself of any beneficial interest in the policy, appointing it to be held principally for the benefit of his three children, the third to fifth defendants. In 1991 M. committed suicide, whereupon the insurers paid to the trustees of the policy, the first and second defendants, £1m. as the death benefit due under it. The purchasers brought an action claiming the proceeds of the policy. The judge held at first instance that they could recover 53.46 per cent. of the proceeds as representing the extent to which their money had contributed to the investment value of the policy at the date of M.’s death. The Court of Appeal (one judge dissenting) gave them their money back but would not allow them to participate in the value of the policy – the beneficiaries of which were innocent of any breach of trust [1998] 2 WLR 298. The House of Lords held (by a rather wavering majority) that the purchases were entitled to an appropriate share of the policy proceeds.
FOSKETT v. McKEOWN
Download
FUTTER V. HMRC; PITT V. HMRC
[2013] UKSC 26
The decision limits the rule in Hastings-Bass to cases where trustees had committed a breach of duty. In both the cases under appeal the trustees had taken expert advice and followed it and were not therefore in breach of their duty.
FUTTER V. HMRC; PITT V. HMRC
Download
GOMEZ v. GOMEZ-MONCHE VIVES
[2008] EWHC 259 (ch)
Helpful guidance on interpretation of the EC Judgments Regulation.
GOMEZ v. GOMEZ-MONCHE VIVES
Download
GOMEZ v. GOMEZ-MONCHE VIVES
[2008] EWCA Civ 1065
The Court considered the meaning of “domicile of a trust” and “sued … as … trustee or beneficiary” in art 5(6) of the Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001
GOMEZ v. GOMEZ-MONCHE VIVES
Download
GRUPO TORRAS v. FAHAD
[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 374
For the Court to make an order for discovery in this case it was enough that the structure “danced” to the bidding of the Sheikh: the Court did not need to find that it was a sham.
GRUPO TORRAS v. FAHAD
Download
Hartogs v Sequent (Schweiz)
[2019] EWHC 1915 (Ch)
Transaction annulled for mistake: rule in Pitt v Holt applied.
Hartogs v Sequent (Schweiz)
Download
HART’S WILL TRUSTS
[1943] 2 All ER 557
The will gave the life tenant power to direct the investment of the trust fund. The will said nothing about what the trustees were to do if the life tenant refused or failed to give directions or whether his power extended to requiring the trustees to purchase investments from him himself. The parties sought classification from the Court.
HART’S WILL TRUSTS
Download
HASTINGS-BASS (In Re)
[1975] Ch 25
This case is generally referred to as the one in which the Court of Appeal “rescued” trustees from the consequences of their ignorance. As trustees of a settlement made in 1947, they exercised their statutory power of advancement by transferring funds out of the 1947 settlement into a 1957 settlement, some of whose terms infringed the perpetuity rule applicable to the 1947 settlement. It was held at first instance that the 1947 settlement trustees never effectively exercised the power of appointment, but the Court of Appeal was prepared to give partial effect to the advancement, treating it as effective as regards those terms of the later settlement which fell within the perpetuity period of the 1947 settlement, and not otherwise. The trustees’ power of advancement in this case was not contained in the trust instrument but was conferred by s.32 of the Trustee Act 1925. The dispute in the case was not between the beneficiaries and the trustees, but between the trustees and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. SeeAbacus v. NSPCC and Breadner v. Granville-Grossman (supra).
HASTINGS-BASS (In Re)
Download
HR v. JAPT
2 OFLR 252
A case to be pondered by every director of a trust company. The Court was asked to strike out a claim against a director on the grounds that it disclosed no cause of action against him. Of the five heads of claim, two were allowed to stand.
HR v. JAPT
Download
In re MANISTY’S SETTLEMENT
[1974] 1 Ch 17
The trustees had power to add as a beneficiary almost anybody in the world. This case tells us that such a power is a valid power and gives some helpful guidance as to how it should be exercised. It has unfortunately been thought by some practitioners to legitimise the “blind” trust.
In re MANISTY’S SETTLEMENT
Download
IRC v. STYPE
[1982] Ch 452
The bones of story are that the deceased had embarked on a simple scheme to put the bulk of his (very considerable) estate beyond the reach of the UK Revenue’s powers to collect tax on his death, and the Court was simply not going to wear it. A strongly-worded judgement, which does not actually decide anything very interesting.Sir Charles Clore vested £20 million-worth of English land in a Jersey company (Stype) as his nominee. Stype sold the land but did not collect the proceeds until after his death, when it caused the purchaser – Prudential – to pay the money into an account in Jersey.
IRC v. STYPE
Download
JSC MEZHDUNARODNIY v PUGACHEV
[2017] EWHC2426 (Ch)
A settlement may leave the beneficial ownership of the trust assets in the hands of the settlor, not because the trust is a sham but because, on a true construction, that is the effect of the document.
JSC MEZHDUNARODNIY v PUGACHEV
Download
KERR v. BRITISH LEYLAND (STAFF) TRUSTEES LTD
[2001] WTLR 1073
The Court will, whenever necessary, require trustees to give proper consideration to all the relevant facts when deciding on a course of action, but should not attempt to substitute its opinion for that of the trustees. The judgement of the ever-wise Fox LJ contains a brilliant summary of the law on the point; strangely, though decided in 1986, and mentioned with approval by Dillon LJ in Stannard v. Fisons Pension Trust Ltd in 1991, it was not reported until 2001. The plaintiff was a member of the staff pension scheme, and his rights were set out in a booklet.
KERR v. BRITISH LEYLAND (STAFF) TRUSTEES LTD
Download
KITCHEN v. RAF ASSOCIATION and others
[1958] 2 All ER 241
The judgement contains a useful passage on the nature of equitable fraud – arising, in this case, not in the context of a trust, but in the context of a plea by the second defendants (the negligent solicitors to the plaintiff) that the plaintiff’s action was barred by lapse of time. The plaintiff claimed (successfully) that her right of action had been concealed by “fraud”, the second defendants having concealed from her the source of an ex gratia payment.
KITCHEN v. RAF ASSOCIATION and others
Download
LEAROYD and CARTER v. WHITELEY
[1911] AC 260
Trustees lent money on the security of land used in a trade. They had a valuation, but their breach of duty – for which they were found liable – was to fail to enquire whether the figure produced by the valuers represented the intrinsic value of the land or its value as part of a going concern. An old, but sobering, case.
LEAROYD and CARTER v. WHITELEY
Download
LIPKIN GORMAN v. KARPNALE
[1992] 4 All ER 512
Money cannot be traced into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. But in English law, gambling chips are not “value”. A case more interesting for its exposition of the law relating to tracing than for its analysis of the Gaming Act
LIPKIN GORMAN v. KARPNALE
Download
LONDONDERRY’S SETTLEMENT, re
[1965] Ch 918
Beneficiaries have a right to see trust documents. But what documents are they? This is an early case, the Court wrestling more or less for the first time to lay down guidelines.
LONDONDERRY’S SETTLEMENT, re
Download
McDONALD v. HORN
[1995] 1 All ER 961
Members of a pension scheme brought proceedings against the trustee, alleging breaches of trust. The judge at first instance (Vinelott J) said that whatever costs the plaintiffs should be found liable to pay should be paid to them out of the pension fund on an indemnity basis. The Court of Appeal agreed, drawing the analogy with a derivative action by a minority shareholder.
McDONALD v. HORN
Download
MINWALLA v. MINWALLA
[2004] EWHC2823 (Fam)
A long judgement, packed with indigestible facts, but buried in the middle are some interesting comments on the nature of a “sham”. The initials “FT” in the judgement refer to an offshore company in which the husband claimed to have no interest.
MINWALLA v. MINWALLA
Download
MOHAMMED v GOMEZ and others
[2019] UKPC 46
Claim to entitlement of equitable interest by proprietary estoppel
MOHAMMED v GOMEZ and others
Download
MURPHY v. MURPHY
2 OFLR 123
In the background of this case was an undignified family quarrel; but in the foreground is a useful discussion of the extent to which a discretionary beneficiary of a trust is entitled to information about the trust fund and the trustees. The judgement is characterised by a broad and lucid reasonableness: an actual beneficiary with a reasonable prospect of being the object of the trustees’ discretion should be entitled to know who the trustees are, but the Court will not order a blameless trustee to identify himself to a plaintiff who wants the information simply in order to consider suing him.
MURPHY v. MURPHY
Download
NESTLE v. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK
[1993] 1 WLR 1260
Another case which shows neither party in a favourable light. It does not appear that the plaintiff – even after attaining her majority – had voiced any complaint during the period of alleged maladministration (though admittedly she was only a contingent beneficiary) and the bank’s behaviour was described by Dillon LJ as “inexcusable” and based on erroneous assumptions and one of its officials as “spuriously knowledgable” (sic). But the Court would not find breach of trust. A case which seems to turn on its own facts, though it might be cited by an indolent trustee to fight off a disgruntled beneficiary.
NESTLE v. NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK
Download
O’ROURKE v. DARBISHIRE
[1920] AC 581
This early case is authority for the proposition that while professional privilege cannot be claimed for communications made by or to a solicitor for the purpose of carrying out a fraud, a mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient to displace the privilege: a prima facie case of fraud must be made out.
O’ROURKE v. DARBISHIRE
Download
PITT v. HOLT
[2010] EWHC 45 (Ch)
The rule in Hastings-Bass applies to a receiver under the Mental Health Act.
PITT v. HOLT
Download
PITT v. HOLT & FUTTER v. FUTTER
[2011] EWCA Civ 197
The Court of Appeal severely limits the ambit of the rule in Hastings-Bass. Whether other jurisdictions follow suit remains to be seen .
PITT v. HOLT & FUTTER v. FUTTER
Download
RCC v. PETER CLAY
[2008] EWCA Civ 144
Trust expenses are chargeable to income only if and to the extent that they cover work carried out exclusively for the benefit of the income beneficiaries. Although a UK tax case, the principles are of general import.
RCC v. PETER CLAY
Download
RE BEDFORD ESTATES
[2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch)
Another case where the Hastings-Bass principle was invoked, the judgement is useful for the formulations by Lloyd LJ of the principle as it had been applied in Mettoy Pension Trustees v. Evans [1991] 2 All ER 513 and as it was to be applied in this case.
RE BEDFORD ESTATES
Download
re ERSKINE TRUST
[2012] EWHC 732 (Ch)
The adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights changed the meaning of the settlement, with retrospective effect.
re ERSKINE TRUST
Download
Re SCARLE (decd) and ANOTHER
[2019] EWHC 2224 (Ch)
Where the order of death is uncertain, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to prove otherwise, and such proof is to the civil standard – the balance of probabilities.
Re SCARLE (decd) and ANOTHER
Download
ROYAL BRUNEI AIRLINES v. TAN
[1995] 3 WLR 64
The Plaintiff was able to trace his money into the hands of a dishonest accessory to a breach of trust.
ROYAL BRUNEI AIRLINES v. TAN
Download
RYSAFFE TRUSTEE CO. v. IRC
[2002] EWHC 1114 (Ch)
Mostly of interest only in relation to UK inheritance tax, the judgment contains a robust rebuttal by the ever-lucid Park J that five settlements in identical terms were “really” one settlement. His decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
RYSAFFE TRUSTEE CO. v. IRC
Download
SIEFF AND OTHERS v. FOX AND OTHERS
[2003] EWCA Civ 356
The Judge applied the Hastings-Bass principle to the facts of the case. This otherwise rather wordy judgement is interesting for the Judge’s succinct re-statement of the principle.
SIEFF AND OTHERS v. FOX AND OTHERS
Download
SINGHA v HEER
[2016] EWCA Civ 424
The use of the word "trust" did not mean that a trust was created.
SINGHA v HEER
Download
SNOOK v. LONDON AND WEST RIDING INVESTMENTS
[2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch)
This case turned on the question, whether or not a hire-purchase transaction was a “sham” to mask a loan, the transaction having taken place against the background of some now long-forgotten statutory restrictions on the granting of credit. One judge thought that it was, and two judges thought that it was not.The case is not really interesting either for its facts or its decision, but for the observations on the nature of a “sham” in the judgement of Diplock LJ.
SNOOK v. LONDON AND WEST RIDING INVESTMENTS
Download
SOUTHWOOD v. HM ATTORNEY GENERAL
[1967] 2 QB 786
A case discussing the borderline between educational purposes (which are charitable) and political ones (which are not).
SOUTHWOOD v. HM ATTORNEY GENERAL
Download
STACK v. DOWDEN
1 ITELR 119
This case is about the beneficial ownership of a property acquired jointly be a couple living together, though not married, who had contributed unequally to the cost. The business of the Court is to ascertain the true intention of the parties by looking at the available facts – not by any means (as can be seen from the long speeches, the innumerable cases cited and Lord Neuberger’s dissenting reasoning in the full report) a straightforward task.
STACK v. DOWDEN
Download
STANNARD v. FISONS PENSION TRUST LTD
[2007] UKHL 17
A division of Fisons had been sold and its employees contracts of employment taken over by the purchasing company. It was agreed that the purchaser’s pension fund would take over the liabilities of the Fisons pension fund to the transferred employees, and that the Fisons trustees would transfer part of their fund to the trustees of the purchaser’s pension fund. The amount to be transferred was ascertained by reference to the value of the fund at the date of the agreement, but by the time the transfer came to be made, rises in the stock market had resulted in a rise in the value of the fund – of which the Fison trustees were unaware. This benefited the remaining employees, and indirectly benefited Fisons by permitting a reduction in employer’s contributions. The plaintiff was a transferred employee.
STANNARD v. FISONS PENSION TRUST LTD
Download
STATE OF NORWAY’S APPLICATIONS (Nos 1 and 2)
[1991] PLR 226
The estate of a deceased Norwegian taxpayer (“J”) was in dispute with the Norwegian tax authorities. Two English merchant bankers had acted as bankers to a charitable trust allegedly set up by J and allegedly held shares as his nominee. This was an application (and an amended) application) by the State of Norway to compel the bankers to attend before an examiner in London.The case turned on the question, whether the Norwegian proceedings were a “civil or commercial” matter, as required by the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975. The House of Lords held that they were and went on to say that the ordering of such examination did not amount to enforcement of foreign tax. The following passage from the speech of Lord Goff deals with this point.
STATE OF NORWAY’S APPLICATIONS (Nos 1 and 2)
Download
TARGET HOLDINGS v. REDFERNS
[1989] 1 All ER 743
Where a trustee pays away trust money in breach of trust, the basic rule of equity is that he must restore the trust fund to what it would have been if he had not committed the breach. But in this case the plaintiff had not suffered any damage (or at least had not at this stage of the proceedings shown that it had suffered any damage) by reason of the breach: should the rule nevertheless be applied? A difficult point, to which the House of Lords gave an answer opposite to that of the Court of Appeal. Extracts would do no justice to the irresistible sweep of Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s careful exposition. His speech is therefore reproduced in full.
TARGET HOLDINGS v. REDFERNS
Download
TWINSECTRA LTD v. YARDLEY
[1995] AC 352
Here the House of Lords examines the nature of “dishonesty” in the context of dishonest assistance (formerly called “knowing assistance”), and follows the principles enunciated by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines v. Tan (see above). The facts and judgement are succinctly set out in the judgement of Lord Hoffman, but actually the dissenting judgement of Lord Millett (not reproduced here) is a better read.
TWINSECTRA LTD v. YARDLEY
Download
UNITED MIZRAHI BANK LTD. v. DOHERTY
[2002] UKHL 12
The claim here is that assets held by the defendants are held by them as constructive trustees for the plaintiff. The Mareva injunction freezing the assets has a proviso allowing the defendants to utilise such of them as are necessary to meet their reasonable legal expenses. The Court is asked to say that if the plaintiff ultimately wins, he will not be able to claim from the solicitors the assets so utilised. A novel and difficult point so lucidly expounded by Michael Burton QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, that the judgement deserves to be printed in full
UNITED MIZRAHI BANK LTD. v. DOHERTY
Download
WALKER v. STONES
[1998] Ch 435
This is a lengthy judgment in a complicated case. Essentially, trusts for the benefit of Mr. George Walker and his brother had a significant interest in a quoted company (BWG) and a trustee for the benefit of Mr. George Walker’s children owned valuable French vineyards indirectly through a French company, Jesaro. Jesaro pledged its interests in the vineyards to borrow money. The trustees guaranteed the borrowing. Jesaro lent the money to BWG and BWG was unable to repay it. The children are suing one of the trustees. The trustee is a solicitor and he pleads an honest (if erroneous) belief that his acts were for the benefit of the children. The case decides that the Court will go beyond the actual state of mind of the trustee and enquire whether a reasonable solicitor-trustee would have had that belief. The case also tells us that breaches of trust by a trustee-partner are not within the ordinary business of the partnership. This means that the other partners are not liable and (presumably) therefore, the claim will not be covered by the firm’s insurance.
WALKER v. STONES
Download
WEBB v WEBB
[2020] UK PC 22
A trust document may reserve such extensive powers to the settlor that, though not a sham, it may leave the settlor the owner of the trust assets.
WEBB v WEBB
Download
WIGHT v. OLSWANG
[2000] All ER(D) 1003
Another case on exculpation clauses. Here an exculpation clause in common form was followed a further exculpation clause from whose benefit a remunerated trustee was excluded. This drafting muddle was construed as disentitling the (remunerated) trustees to the benefit of the earlier clause. Upheld (on this point) by the Court of Appeal
WIGHT v. OLSWANG
Download
X v. A AND OTHERS
1 ITELR 189/3 ITELR 352
An important and illuminating case. Whether or not a payment to a discretionary beneficiary is for his or her benefit is an objective test; the opinion of the beneficiary is not determinative.
X v. A AND OTHERS
Download
YEOMAN’S ROW MANAGEMENT LTD v. COBBE
[2005] EWHC 2706 (Ch) [2008] UKHL 55
The leading case on joint ventures and constructive trusts
YEOMAN’S ROW MANAGEMENT LTD v. COBBE
Download
yeezy boost 350 oxford tan
adidas yeezy 350 boost oxford tan release date
moonrock yeezy 350 boost legit real fake
adidas yezzy boost 350 pirate black moonrock restocking
yeezy boost 350 moonrock raffle
yeezy boost 350 moonrock
331592665172
is the adidas yeezy boost 350 turtle dove releasing again
yeezy boost 350 turtle dove AQ4832
fse 082415 p se yeezy boost 350
adidas yeezy 350 boost
where to buy yeezy boost 350 v2 black white
adidas yeezy boost 350 pirate black
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 black white
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 blackwhite reservations open december 15 confirmed app
buy black friday yeezy boost 350 v2
yeezy boost 350 v2 black white
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 official images
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 restock info
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 beluga solar red
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 beluga launches tomorrow news.23913.html
yeezy boost 350 v2 black white release date
adidas yeezy
yeezy boost 350 v2 bw raffle
store list for the black white adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 release news.26285.html
adidas yeezy boost 350 v2 black white release procedure announced news.26233.html
yeezy boost 350 v2 black white raffle