“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
Re G Trust [2024] JRC185
When considering whether to bring proceedings in relation to a trust, a key question for practitioners and litigants is who might pay the costs. In particular, practitioners may be asked to advise whether the costs of the proceedings will be payable from the trust fund itself.
Many people want to make provision in their will for charity. Some choose to continue their lifetime support of a particular charity that they have a personal connection to while others may not have people in their lives to whom they would wish to leave their estate. Alternatively, some testators want to make use of the favourable Inheritance Tax treatment obtained by leaving a proportion of their estate to charity.
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.
In Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, the Court of Appeal appeared – controversially – to take the view that a court could not lawfully compel parties to a civil dispute to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process.
The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 introduced pivotal substantive reforms to English land law, in particular ridding it of the outmoded concept of the trust for sale and replacing it with the trust of land.
As a matter of statute, there are only three ways of effectively revoking a valid will. First, unless the will is made “in contemplation of marriage/civil partnership” the later marriage or civil partnership of the testator will have the effect of revoking the earlier will of the testator. This occurs by operation of law and is not always intentional.
At the time of writing, the Supreme Court has not yet handed down judgment on the appeal of Hirachand v Hirachand [2021] EWCA Civ 1498 on the question of whether a conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fee is a debt which can legitimately be included in an award to a successful claimant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. In the meantime, two recent decisions of the High Court on costs in relation to the 1975 Act claims Jassal v Shah and Ramji v Harvey may be of interest to practitioners.
For a will to be valid it is commonly said that there are four requirements: (1) the will must have been executed by the testator in accordance with the Wills Act 1837, section 9; (2) the testator must have had the necessary capacity to execute the will; (3) the testator must have been free of undue influence and fraud; and (4) the testator must have “known and approved” of the will. This article considers the fourth requirement, the need for knowledge and approval.
The legal rules applying to ownership of a matrimonial home have been the subject of much jurisprudence as courts attempt to provide security to individual parties whilst updating legal principles alongside societal developments. These cases often involve the implications of family life, which require important policy considerations. This field is particularly interesting as it is governed by technical notions of equity and trusts, but the rules will impact almost all laypeople who need to understand the legal position.
Turner’s “Rome, From Mount Aventine” (the “Painting”) was completed in 1835, the preliminary sketches having been made during his second trip to Rome in 1828. We are on the southernmost of the seven hills, looking north over Tiber Island at dawn.
It will be well known by most readers that it has been a key plank of Labour’s electoral campaign to abolish the link between domicile and UK taxation.
This was a probate claim, with an alternative claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) in the event the later will was valid. This article considers a procedural point that arose, namely whether there should be a trial on the written evidence, as well as the substantive will validity challenges on the grounds of lack of formalities, testamentary capacity and undue influence. As the court held the later will invalid, there was no need to determine the alternative claim under the 1975 Act.
On 28 December 2023, the Supreme Court of The Bahamas handed down a consolidated judgment in the seemingly interminable and increasingly renowned case of Gabriele Volpi v Delanson Services Ltd & 2 Others and Delanson Services Ltd v Matteo Volpi and 2 Others.
Claims to a beneficial interest in property which is held in the sole name of the defendant are often brought on the basis of a common intention constructive trust.
It is increasingly common for people to live lives that are more and more international, not only with assets of significance across multiple jurisdictions but also their residence(s) split similarly.
Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.