“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
Thomas the Tank Engine and the capital/income divide in trusts law
Difficulties can arise in distinguishing between trust capital and income where the asset settled is itself a right to receive a stream of payments. Recently, in Wensley Stock and Others v Neal [2026] EWHC 1823 (Ch), Richards J held that royalties that were income for income tax purposes were nevertheless capital for trust law purposes.
The judgment in Hinduja v Hinduja [2026] EWCOP 34 (T3) was handed down by Bacon J on 4 August 2026. It concerns an application to the Court of Protection (“COP”) for the relaxation of COP restrictions upon the use of documents – principally the collateral use restrictions under Rule 5.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“COPR”) – so that they could be used in separate proceedings.
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.
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.
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.
This article considers three recent judgments concerning Re Benjamin orders, under which trustees or personal representatives are permitted to distribute a fund on certain (unproven) assumptions without incurring personal liabilities to any prejudiced beneficiary.
Practitioners advising on disputes concerning the beneficial ownership of land will frequently encounter a familiar difficulty. There may be situations where clients will assert that there was a clear family agreement that they would have an interest in one or more properties. However, they are not on the legal title, there is no trust deed or will in their favour, and critically, at least some of them cannot demonstrate any detrimental reliance on the agreement that was made. How, in these situations, can a trust be established?
A great deal has been written about the consequences for protector powers after the decision of the Privy Council in A and 6 Others v C and 13 Others [2026] UKPC 11. This article, is about something which has so far garnered less attention but may turn out to be just as consequential: the potential tax issues the decision raises.
For the usual reasons that apply to capacitous settlors – asset protection, tax efficiency, providing for spendthrifts, etc – it is often advantageous for the assets of those lacking mental capacity to be settled onto trust. Such persons often (suddenly) become wealthy by reason of legal awards. In addition, settling the assets of an incapacitous minor onto trust is a way to avoid undesirable succession consequences on their death under the intestacy rules (such as inheritance by an absent or even abusive parent) in circumstances where they cannot make a will nor have a statutory will made for them by the Court of Protection.
Courts do not look fondly on those who attempt to frustrate legitimate claims by dissipating assets. The principles are illustrated by Teixeira v Moaven and Others [2026] EWHC 1215 (Ch). The defendant, like others finding their routes to success narrowing, was ingenious in his attempts to avoid the court’s anti-avoidance jurisdiction.
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.
The recent decision in MacDougall v Thomas and Others (Re MacDougall) [2026] EWHC 1142 (Ch) will not be read quickly. Nicola Rushton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, took 143 pages and over 500 paragraphs to dispose of nine transactions or groups of transactions across some 15 years, traversing testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, testamentary and lifetime undue influence, proprietary estoppel, the duties of attorneys and ademption. Yet a dominant theme emerges: where the law of wills and general equity principles governing lifetime gifts collide, the two bodies of law must be kept distinct, so that a relationship raising presumed undue influence for a lifetime gift may fall short of the coercion required to invalidate a will.
George v Townsend and Another [2026] EWHC 1507 (Fam) is a useful reminder – if one were needed – that issuing some sort of claim within six months of a grant of representation is not the same thing as issuing a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”) correctly, using the right claim form, supported by the right evidence and serving it properly.
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.
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.
Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.