The key factor in determining how the gift in residue will devolve following the death of the husband is the nature of the gift given to the spouses: was it the testator's intention that the spouses take the residue as joint tenants with right of survivorship, or was it that they take as tenants in common? Concurrent gifts—general rule Where property is given to several persons concurrently, the questions whether these persons take as joint tenants or tenants in common, and, if as tenants in common, what shares they take, depend on the testator's intention to be ascertained from the words of the Will as a whole. Prima facie, a gift to several persons, without words of

Firstly, each of the married couple to whom the question refers must be considered separately, not jointly. The general rule which determines whether or not a gift is a gift of property subject to a reservation is set out in section 102 of the Finance Act 1986 (FA 1986). If the property is subject to a reservation, it is treated as being within the donor's estate for inheritance tax purposes. The rule in FA 1986, s 102 is that property is subject to a reservation where, on or after 18 March 1986, an individual disposes of any property by way of gift and either: • possession and enjoyment

The courts have long recognised as effective and enforceable contractual promises to make or not to revoke Wills. A may thus bind himself personally as to the contents of his Will and may bind his assets so that his personal representative must give effect to such agreement in favour of B at the expense of the beneficiaries under any Will or intestacy taking effect contrary to the contract. Enforcement for breach is usually by the contractual remedies of damages or specific performance (although usually in relation to the asset in question) or, in relation to promises of specific legacies, pursuant to a trust long recognised as arising by virtue of the contract of the property in question. In order to be enforceable

A tenant must for the last two years have been a qualifying tenant of a flat under a long lease in order to qualify for a new lease. The case of The Wellcome Trust Ltd v Baulackey provides that the two-year period is calculated from the date of registration at the Land Registry. We have not been able to find any authority or commentary on the facts

The question states that the trusts created for the children of the deceased testator are not ‘bereaved minor trusts’ which fall within section 71A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). We do not have full details of the terms of the trust, but from the information provided to us, the trusts do appear to fall within IHTA 1984, s 71A. IHTA 1984, s 71A(3)(a) sets out the condition

This would be a gift with reservation (RoB). A disposal of property is caught by the RoB rules where it is made by way of gift and either: • the possession and enjoyment of the property is not bona fide assumed by the donee at or before the beginning of the period of seven years ending on the donor’s death (or from the date of the gift to death if the gift is made within seven years of death) (the relevant period), or • at any time in the relevant period the property is not enjoyed to the entire exclusion, or virtually the entire exclusion, of the donor and of any benefit to them by contract or otherwise By the RoB rules, for IHT purposes

This situation may give rise to a classic proprietary estoppel. A proprietary estoppel arises where: • an owner of land (O) makes an assurance or promise, or gives encouragement, to another party (C) to believe that it has or will enjoy some right or benefit over O’s property • C reasonably relies on that assurance, promise or encouragement • C suffers detriment as a result of its reliance, and • then O seeks to take unconscionable advantage of C by denying it the right or benefit which it expected to receive See generally Practice Note: Estoppel and property law. However, where the assurance was that the assured party (ie C) was to enjoy a benefit in the nature of a

Causation In most torts, where a defendant breaches its duty towards the claimant, they are only liable if the claimant can establish that the breach in question has resulted in some harm. Establishing factual causation requires the claimant to produce evidence that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s breach resulted in the damage complained of, also known as the ‘but for’ test. The starting point for a claimant in most cases is to prove in the affirmative that the claimant would have been unlikely to suffer loss ‘but for’ the defendant’s breach of duty. Ultimately, the claimant must prove two basic tenets on the balance of probabilities: • that the breach can cause the type of harm in question (factual causation) • that the claimant’s

Where an interest in possession trust is created on death, the inheritance tax (IHT) treatment depends on the identity of the life tenant (section 49 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984)). Therefore, where A leaves their estate to B outright or on a life interest trust, on A’s death there will be a deemed transfer of value of A’s estate under IHTA 1984, s 4 (see also IHTA 1984, ss 3 and 5). This chargeable transfer is

Section 268 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 contains the 'associated operations' anti-avoidance provisions which provide that, where there is more than one transfer of value in relation to the same property, the combined effect on the value of the transferor's estate will be taken into account in determining whether there is a transfer

B may be able to claim against A under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (T(IG)A 1977). T(IG)A 1977, s 1 defines ‘wrongful interference with goods’, among others, as: • (a) conversion of goods • (b) trespass to goods Commentary: Trespass to goods compared with conversion: Halsbury's Laws of England [271] sets out that the tort of conversion is concerned with the ‘most serious, or “exclusionary” interferences’, whereas trespass is ‘associated with minor interferences’. They are both strict liability torts, so there is no defence of lack of intent. An example of trespass to goods might include, eg scratching the panel of the claimant's car, or deliberately touching a painting hanging in a gallery. The action may not amount to a conversion, as the person with legal title

The detailed rules ensure that changes to a debt owed by or to the parties in connection with a land transaction are taken into account as chargeable consideration. The rules are explained in Practice Note: SDLT chargeable consideration in the section ‘Debt as consideration’ and considered in Q&A: If a husband transfers half of a property owned solely by him into his wife’s name and simultaneously discharges one loan against the property and