The settlor applied for the approval of an arrangement for the export of his trust to Jersey, where he had gone to live. The court considered its powers under the 1968 Act.
Held: The court should not consider merely the financial benefit to the infants or unborn children, but also their educational and social benefit. There were many things in life more worthwhile than money. In this case, his Lordship found that it was not for the benefit of children to be uprooted from England and transported to another country simply to avoid tax.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘In exercising its discretion, the function of the court is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.’ The proposed variation was not for the benefit of the specified class and the court refused to approve it.
Beneficiaries who are sui juris and together absolutely entitled to the trust property have the right to defeat the intention of the settlor by varying or revoking the trust as they see fit.
Lord Denning MR
 1 Ch 223,  3 All ER 338
England and Wales
Cited – Goulding and Goulding v James and Daniel CA 10-Dec-1996
The family sought approval of a proposed variation of the will to make best advantage of tax allowances. Because the beneficial interests of children would be affected, the court’s approval was necessary. The judge had refused to approve the . .
Cited – Wright and Another v Gater and Others ChD 7-Nov-2011
The beneficiary, a child was to inherit estates of his grandparents and parents, all of which were intestate. An application was made to vary the provisions in order to reduce the liability to Inheritance Tax.
Held: A deferment of vesting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.241677