The court was asked whether the illegal intention behind the execution of a declaration of trust had been carried into effect to the extent that it prevented P from asserting that a declaration of trust in relation to a property was a sham and that she was in fact the beneficial owner of the property.
Held: Although both P and her husband had said that the reason behind the execution of the trust was to distance the property from the Inland Revenue, that had not actually happened. Amongst other things, the declaration of trust was never shown to the Inland Revenue and P had declared the property to them as her asset. She was not prevented from asserting that the property was hers.
Judges:
Lewison J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 758 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – SQ v RQ and Another FD 31-Jul-2008
The home in which the family had lived was held in the name of a brother. Each party claimed that it was held in trust for them. Chancery proceedings had been consolidated into these ancillary relief applications. The home had been in the husband’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Company, Land, Trusts
Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.250707