“We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies.” Close
Access and collateral use
Court of Protection applications for statutory wills, lifetime gifts, and the appointment and removal of attorneys and deputies are likely to involve consideration of P’s dispositive and testamentary wishes, family relationships and dynamics, capacity, and susceptibility to influence.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Lorenz v Caruana and Others [2025] EWCA Civ 606 offers an opportunity to discuss secret trusts in the particular context of attempted tax avoidance using the spousal exemption for Inheritance Tax.
Only logged in subscribers have access to the PDF issue library. Log in to continue or subscribe now
One of the most basic Inheritance Tax mitigation strategies is to make a Potentially Exempt Transfer and to survive for seven years. It is generally well understood that if there is a reservation of benefit, the seven-year survival period will not start running until the reservation of benefit is removed.
This article considers two recent judgments given after the taking of trust accounts. The first is Master Marsh’s decision in Hubbard v Hubbard [2025] EWHC 855 (Ch). The second, Master McQuail’s judgment in Walker v Somboonsarn [2025] EWHC 1643 (Ch). These judgments offer rare guidance into the practice on the taking of an account.
The recent decision of Costs Judge Brown in Reeves v Frain and Others [2025] EWHC 185 (SCCO) (“the Costs Judgment”) is a timely reminder for contentious probate litigators to consider their funding arrangements and retainers with care.
Several recent decisions have considered the potential effect of partnership agreements on proprietary estoppel claims made in the context of family farming partnerships. This article seeks to summarise those decisions and briefly consider whether they establish any principles of general application.
Two recent High Court judgments involving family farms, Scott v Estate of Richard Norman Scott [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch) and Maile v Maile [2025] EWHC 2494 (Ch), have illustrated the difficulties faced by claimants trying to establish a claim in proprietary estoppel.
For those whose pulse quickens at the mention of fiduciary doctrine, 2025 has been a year of bountiful riches, with the Supreme Court handing down no fewer than three decisions in the field. In March, came Rukhadze and Others v Recovery Partners GP Ltd and Another [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329 in which the court was required to fend off attacks on equity’s hallowed “no-profit rule” from common law barbarian invaders.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in National Iranian Oil Company and Another v Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1211 raises important considerations on the scope of section 53(1)(b) LPA and the consequences of non-compliance in the context of insolvency proceedings.
The appellant was the trustee of a settlement known as the Tiodab Trust (the “Trust”). The dispute related to whether Inheritance Tax was payable on the Trust’s 10th anniversary.
The “profit rule” is the latest equitable principle to be given a firm shake by those who favour the supposed predictability of common law principles.
Canarapen v Gauchenot [2025] EWHC 2728 (Ch) concerns a deed of variation that gifted a share in a property. The party making the gift under the deed later regretted their decision and sought to revoke it. The decision examines both the formal and substantive requirements for a deed to be valid.
Notice is a familiar and important concept to trust lawyers. Paradigmatically, it is a key component of the defence of bona fide purchaser without notice, which determines whether a person takes a legal property interest subject to, or free from, an equity or equitable proprietary interest of another.
In the present case the probate valuation was outdated and unreliable, with the company controlled by family members (with their own interests), reluctant to provide the information necessary for a proper valuation. The question arose: could the court compel disclosure from the company to enable proper valuation, or did the parties have to proceed with inadequate information?
This important appeal arose out of proceedings brought under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 for the division of assets upon divorce. In determining the fair outcome to which the parties are entitled, several guiding principles have been developed. One of those principles is the sharing principle, pursuant to which property is classified as either matrimonial or non-matrimonial and such of the property as is deemed to be matrimonial is shared, usually but not invariably on an equal basis. This was the issue with which this appeal was concerned.
Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.