Breadner v Granville-Grossman: ChD 2000

‘it cannot be right, whenever trustees do something which they later regret and think they ought not to have done, they can say they never did it in the first place’
It was not correct to suggest that whenever trustees do something which they later regret and think that they ought not to have done, then they can say that they never did it in the first place. However: ‘the main ways at present open to the court to control the application of the principle are: (a) to insist on a stringent application of the tests as they have been laid down, (b) to take a reasonable and not over-exigent view of what it is that the trustees ought to have taken into account, and (c) to adopt a critical approach to contentions that the trustees would have acted differently if they had realised the true position.’
Park J
[2000] 4 All ER 705, [2000] EWHC Ch 224, [2001] 2 WLR 593, [2001] 1 Ch 523, [2000] WTLR 829
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAMP (UK) Plc and Another v Barker and Others ChD 8-Dec-2000
The claimants were interested under a pension scheme. Alterations had been made, which the said had been in error, and they sought rectification to remove a link between early leaver benefits and incapacity benefits. The defendant trustees agreed . .
CitedFutter and Another v Futter and Others ChD 11-Mar-2010
Various family settlements had been created. The trustees wished to use the rule in Hastings-Bass to re-open decisions they had made after receiving incorrect advice.
Held: The deeds were set aside as void. The Rule in Hastings-Bass derives . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.184589