Court applications for non-contentious trusts

Variation of trusts—variation of trusts with the court's assistance

It is open to any settlor to impose such trusts and confer such powers and discretions as they see fit. Consequently, the general rule is that the court has no inherent jurisdiction to vary the terms of a trust where those trusts are clearly expressed and valid. However, this general rule is subject to exceptions.

Under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958

Under section 1 of the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 (VTA 1958), the court may by order approve any arrangement, on behalf of those persons listed in VTA 1958, ss 1(1)(a)-1(1)(d):

'Where property, whether real or personal, is held on trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under any will, settlement or other disposition.'

An application to the court under the VTA 1958, s 1 for the variation of the terms of a trust should be begun using the Part 8 procedure.

Under section 57 of the Trustee Act 1925

Where trustees manage and administer property and the trust instrument (or the law) does not

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

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Question of the week: If an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document? Or would rectification be required?

This Q&A considers whether, if an executed deed of appointment under a trust is missing the name of the appointee (due to a clerical error) would the courts generally admit evidence of the intention of the appointors as an aid to construction of the document, or would rectification be required.

FTT considers late appeal applications (Stenhouse and another v HMRC; Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC)

Tax analysis: In Stenhouse and another v HMRC and Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Ltd and others v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed late appeal applications by the taxpayers against discovery assessments and closure notices, highlighting weaknesses in HMRC’s approach.

IHT not due on failed EBT Bonus scheme (Tonkin v HMRC)

Private Client analysis: This First-tier Tribunal case concerned whether an additional inheritance tax (IHT) charge arose under section 94 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984) when a close company (wholly owned by the appellant, Ms Annette Tonkin) entered into an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangement designed to pay her a bonus. The Tribunal allowed Ms Tonkin's appeal. It held that s 94(2)(a) IHTA 1984 applied because the transfer was attributable to a payment taken into account for income tax purposes (ie employment income). Tax practitioners representing clients involved in historic EBTs or similar schemes should review this judgment closely when evaluating HMRC's grounds for imposing IHT liabilities. The decision may also be relevant in challenging other forms of hybrid enforcement where HMRC seeks to recover tax under multiple tax provisions for a single economic transaction. Written by Francis Hudson MA (Cantab), FCA, CTA, ATT (fellow), tax partner, MHA.

Contracts between family members—capacity—unjust enrichment (Rogers v Wills)

Private Client analysis: This case represents a rare example of the court finding that a contract existed between family members (in this case, an elderly mother and her adult daughter). By her claim, the claimant sought to be reimbursed from her mother’s estate for the care that she had provided to her mother during the last few years of her life. The judge provided guidance relating to capacity to enter into legal relations and commented on what, if any, impact the existence of a Lasting Power of Attorney may have on this issue. It was also a feature of the case that the claimant’s mother had been diagnosed with dementia, and so this is also featured in the court’s consideration of capacity. Finally, the claim was also advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment, and the judge provided detailed analysis of whether ‘free acceptance’ is a valid unjust factor. In this last respect, his decision departs from the recent decision of H&P Advisory Ltd v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Ltd in which Simon Gleeson (sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court) dismissed free acceptance as a free-standing unjust factor, as well as obiter observations of Lord Burrows in Barton v Morris. Written by Ben Haseldine, barrister at 4 King’s Bench Walk.