Lady Ingram had first conveyed properties to her solicitor who on the next day let the properties back to her, and on the day after conveyed the freehold of the properties to her family.
Held: The leases in favour of Lady Ingram, having been granted by a nominee to his principal, were a nullity. However, this did not mean that the leasehold interest which Lady Ingram admittedly acquired against the trustees was a benefit reserved. There had been no point of time at which the trustees and beneficiaries had held the property otherwise than subject to the leasehold interests. Lady Ingram never intended to give them the property free from those interests and they were not therefore included in the gift. The freehold interests in the property were subject to an equitable interest in Lady Ingram equivalent to that which she would have taken had the leases been valid, enjoyed to the entire exclusion of Lady Ingram and of any benefit to her by contract or otherwise. S102 had no application. ‘It appears to me that, whether Lady Ingram took her leasehold interests in equity or by the operation of section 65 of the Law of Property Act, what the trustees and the beneficiaries under the declarations of trust have finished up with is the property subject to those leasehold interests. Unless it can be said that there was a period or point of time at which the trustees and beneficiaries had a more extensive interest out of which the leasehold interests were carved, the subject matter of the gift made by Lady Ingram was the property shorn of those leasehold interests. In deciding whether or not this could be said two things appear to me to be of cardinal importance. First Lady Ingram never intended to give the property to the trustees and beneficiaries free from the leasehold interests which it is common ground that she had. Secondly the creation and existence of these leasehold interests was not in any way dependent upon the concurrence of the trustees and beneficiaries, still less upon the performance by them of some positive act. In terms of substance, Lady Ingram had her leasehold interests from the very same moment that the trustees and beneficiaries had the property subject to those interests.’
Times 23-May-1995, Gazette 14-Jun-1995, Ind Summary 05-Jun-1995,  4 All ER 334
England and Wales
Cited – Kildrummy (Jersey) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners IHCS 1990
It was not possible in Scottish law for a man to grant a lease to a nominee for himself: (Lord Hope) ‘I have, as I have said, no difficulty in the concept by which the title to property and the beneficial interest are separated, the title being held . .
Cited – Rye v Rye HL 1962
Two brothers were in partneship in unequal shares, but acquired a property for use by the business which they held in equal shares. They agreed a parol yearly tenancy between themselves as owners and as partners. After one died his son took over his . .
Cited – St Aubyn v Attorney General HL 12-Jul-1951
The donor exercised powers of appointment ‘to make some part of the settled property his own’, and it was ‘wholly irrelevant that by a contemporaneous or later transaction he surrenders his life interest in other parts of it’. The different parts of . .
Appeal from – Ingram and Palmer-Tomkinson (Executors of the Estate of Lady Jane Lindsay Morgan Ingram Deceased) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue CA 28-Jul-1997
The deceased had first conveyed property to her solicitor. Leases back were then created in her favour, and then the freeholds were conveyed at her direction to her children and grandchildren. They were potentially exempt transfers.
Held: . .
At First Instance – Ingram and Another v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 10-Dec-1998
To protect her estate from Inheritance Tax, the deceased gave land to her solicitor, but then took back a lease. The solicitor then conveyed the land on freehold on to members of her family.
Held: The lease-back by the nominee was not void as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.82331