Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Trusts - From: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 19 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Anker-Petersen v Christensen [2002] WTLR 313; [2001] EWHC B3 (Ch)
2002
ChD
Davis J
Trusts
Where a mistake is made as to the effect of an appointment under a trust it may be possible to invoke the court’s jurisdiction to rescind the appointment. Davis J considered Millett J's distinction between "effect" and "consequences": "An example in this context might be tax. If a party enters into a deed (with a view to saving tax) on terms which are fully understood and where the effect of such terms is fully appreciated and if for whatever reason the anticipated desirable tax consequences thereafter do not flow, it would really not be open, in the ordinary way at least, to such a person to seek to set aside that deed on the ground that he had not understood its nature or effect. I say this appreciating that possibly the position may be different in the case of the exercise of a power or of a discretion by a fiduciary: it may be - and I say no more than that it may be - that the adverse and unintended tax consequences of the exercise of the power or discretion may be invoked to set aside the exercise of that particular power or discretion. But I think the position is entirely different where what is sought to be set aside is a deed entered into by way of voluntary transaction."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Schulman v Hewson and others; ChD 2002 - [2002] EWHC 855 (Ch)
 
Allan v Rea Brothers Trustees Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 85
8 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Keene
Financial Services, Trusts, Equity
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for damages for breach of trust. The respondent had administered his pension, a 'small self-administered scheme'. The regulations required a pensioner trustee who took on specific duties. He had been persuaded by a crook to appoint the defendant to act, knowing that it was intended to draw from the scheme unlawfully, by pretending to be an employee of a company scheme to which the assets had been transferred. Held: The money transferred was already subject to an express trust. There was a difference between a proprietary and a personal remedy for breach of trust, the latter being affected by the knowledge of the breach in the claimant. Although the transfer of funds did not create a resulting trust, the assets were already trust assets. A beneficiary cannot complain of a breach of trust in which he knowingly participated or acquiesced. Appeal dismissed.
Retirement Benefits Schemes (Restriction on Discretion to Approve) (Small Self-Administered Schemes) Regulations 1991 (1991 No.1614)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others; HL 21-Mar-2002 - Times, 25 March 2002; Gazette, 10 May 2002; [2002] UKHL 12; [2002] 2 AC 164; [2002] 38 EGCS 204; [2002] PNLR 30; [2002] 2 All ER 377; [2002] NPC 47; [2002] 2 WLR 802; [2002] WTLR 423
 
London and Regional Investments Ltd v TBI Plc and Others [2002] EWCA Civ 355
22 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mummery LJ
Company, Trusts
TBI was a property investor and developer with several subsidiaries. It agreed to sell some to London and Regional. The agreement provided for the vendor and the purchaser to use reasonable endeavours to agree the terms of a joint venture agreement regarding land at Belfast and Cardiff airports, having regard to the principles set out in an agreed note. The agreed note was headed "subject to contract". One of the issues was whether London and Regional were entitled to rely on the Pallant v. Morgan equity as a result of the assurance or understanding that a joint venture agreement would be entered into. Held: There was no realistic prospect of London and Regional establishing that claim; and upheld a summary judgment in TBI's favour. Mummery LJ: "The "subject to contract" state of the joint venture negotiations at the date of the Sale Agreement indicates that there is nothing unconscionable in TBI's subsequent refusal to proceed with the joint venture after the Sale Agreement was completed. The validity of this conclusion can be tested by asking this question: when did the trust and the estoppel take effect? It is accepted that no constructive trust or estoppel could have arisen after 13 May 1999 when the parties expressly agreed in the Sale Agreement that the joint venture was "subject to contract". In general, it is not unconscionable for a party to negotiations, which are expressly stated to be "subject to contract," to exercise a reserved right to withdraw from the negotiations before a final agreement has been concluded. If that was the effect of the agreement between the parties on 13 May 1999 I do not see how the conduct of TBI before that date can now be relied on to establish unconscionable conduct giving rise to a constructive trust or an estoppel. For the court to hold that a constructive trust existed in those circumstances would be contrary to what the parties had expressly agreed was to be subject to the making of a future agreement."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Chellaram and Another v Chellaram and others (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch); [2002] 3 All ER 17
16 Apr 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Collins
Trusts, Civil Procedure Rules
One of the defendants had not been properly served by posting the proceedings to an address at which he stayed on his very occasional visits to London. The proceedings had not been issued for the purposes of service abroad, because at the time of deemed service under CPR 6 he was not physically within the jurisdiction: "In my judgment there are two separate reasons why Sham has not been validly served. First, the claimants have not adduced any evidence which casts doubt on Sham's evidence that the address in St John's Wood is used only occasionally by him on the rare occasions when he visits London. In these circumstances there is no evidence that it ever was a 'residence' and it therefore cannot be his 'last known residence'. Secondly, it has always been, and remains, a fundamental rule of English procedure and jurisdiction that a defendant may be served with originating process within the jurisdiction only if he is present in the jurisdiction at the time of service, or deemed service. The Barclays Bank case is simply an illustration of this principle . . CPR Pt 6 contains general rules about service of documents and does not only apply to service of a claim form . . but I do not consider that CPR 6.5 has swept away the general principle so far as it relates to service of the claim form."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Anita Carlton v Jerry David Goodman [2002] 2 FLR 259; Gazette, 30 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 545
29 Apr 2002
CA
Lords Justice Ward, Mummery and Laws
Land, Trusts
The defendant claimed an interest in a house. The deceased had been a sitting tenant, and wanted to purchase his house. He could not obtain finance alone, and she joined with him, becoming liable under the mortgage. She did not live in the house until after his death. She claimed the house. No formal document regulated the arrangement. Held: A resulting trust had been established to hold the entire house on trust for the estate in the absence of any actual monetary contribution. The case was "an interesting point on resulting trusts in a case where the purchase of property acquired for the sole use and occupation of one party is partly financed by a joint mortgage on the property" and "Midland Bank v Cooke itself can only be properly understood when it is appreciated that the court was satisfied that by the making of a direct contribution a resulting trust had been established in the wife's favour of some part of the beneficial interest and the real question for the court in that case was to determine what proportions the parties must have been assumed to have intended for their beneficial ownership."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Woodman v Tracey [2002] EWCA Civ 1335
10 May 2002
CA

Trusts

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Rahnema v Rahnema and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 695
17 May 2002
CA

Family, Trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
UCB Group Ltd v Gillian Hedworth Times, 13 June 2002; Gazette, 04 July 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 708
24 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Johnathan Parker
Registered Land, Trusts
The claimant was a registered chargee of the property. The respondent claimed an overriding interest. The registered proprietor held the land under a bare trust for the defendant, paying her a weekly rent. She was not in occupation. She had registered a caution. Held: The caution had been properly discharged. A beneficial interest under a bare trust of registered land was a minor interest and not a registrable estate, and could be protected by a restriction only, and rent paid out under such a trust did not 'issue' out of the land and was not an overriding interest.
Registered Land Act 1925 2(1) 70(1)(g)
[ Bailii ]
 
Woodman v Tracey (2) [2002] EWCA Civ 880
13 Jun 2002
CA

Trusts

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bradstock Group Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd v Bradstock Group plc and Others Times, 10 July 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002
17 Jun 2002
ChD
Mr Charles Aldous, QC,
Financial Services, Employment, Trusts
The company found itself unable to fund the pension scheme it had committed itself to. If it sought to pay the money due, the company would have to go into liquidation. It did not meet the minimum funding requirements of the Act. The company proposed a scheme of compromise with the trustees. Held: There was no reason in law why a compromise could not be approved. In a liquidation, the pension trustees would stand as unsecured creditors, and accordingly receive a smaller sum. This was the best practical way forward, and within the powers of the trustees.
Trustee Act 1925 15 - Pensions Act 1995 75

 
Ali v Khan [2002] EWCA Civ 974
11 Jul 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor
Trusts, Land

[ Bailii ]
 
Chan, Chun v Leung, Ho [2002] EWCA] Civ 1075
29 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Rix, Mr Justice Nelson, Lord Justice Johnathan Parker
Land, Trusts
The claimant sought to assert her interest in a house purchased by a company in debt to the respondent for whom she had worked and with whom she had had a relationship. The company was insolvent. She claimed he had promised her a house, and that it had been purchased under that promise, and that she was protected under both 1996 Acts. The defendant appealed orders declaring her interest. Held: the decision followed largely from the judge's assessment of the parties and the exercise of his discretion. The claimant had acted to her detriment in accepting the gift, and the property which was proper for the two when living together remained appropriate when she lived there alone.
Family Law Act 1996 33(3) 33(4) - Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 14
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Collier v Collier [2002] EWCA Civ 1095; [2002] BPIR 1057; [2002] 6 ITELR 270
30 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Mance LJ
Equity, Trusts
The daughter claimant sought possession of business premises from her father who held them under leases. He claimed an order that the property was held in trust for him. The judge that at the time the properties were conveyed, the father had been fearful of a potential substantial liability and it had been done to protect the property against those creditors. Held: Equity will not permit a transferor of property by way of gift in order to perpetrate a fraud to pray in aid the existence of that illegal purpose in order to rebut a presumption of advancement. "the leases “were shams as between father and daughter”. The daughter “should at most be his nominee and effectively the lease should be available to be used only if required in order to deceive”. He made the grants to the daughter “with the intention that if it served his interest he should treat the grants as gifts, but if it did not he would claim that the grant was subject to his beneficial interest.” The transfers were carried out “with the object of defrauding the respective mortgagees of their security”. There had been no voluntary withdrawal from the transaction. To recover the property the father needed to rely upon the agreement which set up the trust. That agreement provided that the trust should be concealed from creditors and the Inland Revenue. The result is that the father cannot dispute the effect of the transfers of the property without relying upon his illegality. The property must lie where it rests. "
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Bath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia); ChD 31-Jul-2002 - [2002] EWCA 1623 (Ch)
 
Beresford and Another v Williamson and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1632
25 Oct 2002
CA

Land, Trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
Stein v Stein [2002] EWCA Civ 1609
1 Nov 2002
CA

Trusts

[ Bailii ]
 
Downing v Lissimore [2002] EWCA Civ 1698; [2003] 2 FLR 308
6 Nov 2002
CA

Trusts, Land
Application for order to reflect interest of cohabiting partner in house.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.