Trust disputes

Court jurisdiction and procedure

Trusts originate in equity and it is therefore unsurprising that actions involving trusts are heard in the Chancery Division of the High Court. However, the county court has jurisdiction up to its limit in amount or value of claim. The parties can also agree, with limitations, that the county court can hear claims above the limit. There are obvious advantages of locality and cost for a county court to hear proceedings, but they are infrequent.

The procedure for dealing with a claim is set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

See Practice Note: Trust disputes—court jurisdiction and procedure.

Applications to the court by trustees

Trustees can often run into problems that they need help with beyond the conventional professional assistance. In those circumstances they can apply to the court for guidance. If they follow that guidance, they are entitled to the protection of the court. However, they must appreciate that in making an application the court will only be concerned to look at what is in the best interests of the trust, not the trustees.

In essence, there is no limit on the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents