Smithson and others v Hamilton: ChD 10 Dec 2007

It is settled law that ‘the Hastings-Bass principle’ was not restricted to cases where the trustees failed to achieve the direct legal effect which they intended. The usual situation is that the action which the trustees have taken achieves exactly the legal effect intended but has unwelcome consequences (usually tax consequences) which the trustees failed to foresee.

Sir Andrew Park
[2007] EWHC 2900 (Ch), [2008] 1 WLR 1453
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSmithson and others v Hamilton CA 23-Jul-2008
. .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Trusts

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.261961