Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others: CA 11 Mar 2005

The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed the interpretation to be wrong and sought advantage from that interpretation on counsel’s advice. Negligence was alleged in having paid an excess sum in respect of a life interest, and in the incurring of unnecessary costs. Negligence was found in several respects.
Held: The amount paid by the executors to achieve the variation, though more than was a approriate in actuarial terms, had been the amount needed in order to achieve the Court of Protection order, and was justifiable accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 248

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142(1), Mental Health Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoJemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Appeal fromJemma Trust Company Limited v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others ChD 1-Apr-2004
. .
CitedIn re DML ChD 1965
The Court considered provisions in Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1959. This section empowered the judge to secure (the doing of all such things as appear necessary . . ) ‘(b) for the maintenance or other benefit of members of the patient’s . .
CitedIn re W (EEM) 1971
It would be for the ‘benefit’ of the patient to exercise the powers conferred by section 95(1) of the 1983 Act so as to enable there to be done something which the patient would have wished to do if he had been able to act for himself. . .
CitedRe King’s Will Trusts, Assheton v Boyne ChD 1964
An assent by personal representatives is ‘the instrument or act whereby a personal representative effectuates a testamentary disposition by transferring the subject-matter of the disposition to the person entitled to it’, and must be in writing even . .
CitedInland Revenue Commissioners v Hawley 1928
When a legatee of shares received them more than a year after the death, he was not treated as receiving all the accrued dividends as income of the year in which the shares became vested in him, but rather, by relation back to the death, in the year . .

Cited by:

See AlsoJemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others CA 22-Nov-2004
The defendants asserted that they had executed a trust deed on the advice of senior counsel in conference. The judge said the notes of the meeting did not justify that conclusion. The firm sought permission to appeal.
Held: There was room for . .
See AlsoJemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA 24-Oct-2003
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Professions, Wills and Probate

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.223377