We have assumed that the proposed individual settlor will be non-UK (deemed) domiciled for tax purposes at the time that the trust is established. As set out in Practice Note: CGT—basic principles for trusts (which contains the relevant legislative references), a settlor of a trust and the trustees of that trust are ‘connected persons’ for the purposes of capital gains tax (CGT). Consequently, where an individual transfers assets into a (revocable or irrevocable) trust (eg the settlor establishes the trust or make additions), the settlor is deemed to be making a disposal of those assets at market value (assuming the asset being transferred to the trust is not cash). A settlor is therefore liable to CGT on any chargeable gain deemed to be realised. Even if the settlor is also a beneficiary of the trust, they are deemed to have disposed of the entire property. See also Commentary: CGT for trustees when assets

This Q&A assumes that no consideration is being provided by the beneficiary. An instrument transferring stock or marketable securities, such as a stock transfer form, is chargeable to UK stamp duty unless an exemption or relief applies (see Practice Note: What does stamp duty apply to?). The charging provision is found in paragraph 1(1) of Part I of Schedule 13 of the Finance Act 1999 (FA 1999) which states that ‘stamp duty is chargeable on a transfer on sale’. The rate of duty is 0.5% of the value or amount of the consideration given for the stock or marketable security unless the stock or marketable security is transferred into a clearance or depositary receipt service. See Practice Note: Stamp duty on transfers—consideration and calculation for further guidance. Does an exemption apply? One of the main exemptions from stamp duty is for low value transfers (FA 1999, Sch 13 Pt I, paras 1(3A), 6), where the: • consideration does not exceed £1,000, and • the instrument

For SDLT purposes (so far as material to this Q&A), ‘residential property’ means: • a building that is used or suitable for use as a dwelling, and • land that is or forms part of the garden or grounds of such a building, or • an interest in or right over land that subsists for the benefit of such a building or of such land Any property that does not answer this description is ‘non-residential property’. The time for applying those tests is the date of completion; though, historic use (rather than continuing use) can also be relevant. The legislation must be construed purposively to the facts viewed realistically.

Where parties disagree on the meaning of an incorporated term, it will be the task of the court to objectively construe the meaning of the term, having regard to the words used, the contract as a whole and the relevant factual background known to the parties at the time of contracting. Where parties have reached agreement, a court will strive to give that agreement meaning. It is therefore important that the meaning of any phrase incorporated into a commercial agreement is clear and unambiguous. General contract interpretation The leading statement on interpretation of contracts is Lord Hoffmann’s statement in Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society. For further reading on Hoffman’s five key principles, see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles. In summary, these five principles have be adequately described by Lord Bingham in BCCI v Ali: ‘To ascertain the intention of the parties the court reads the terms of the contract

Joint tenancies A joint tenancy is a form of co-ownership of land or other assets whereby two or more of the owners hold the property equally and are ‘wholly entitled to the whole’ (Burton v Camden). The key features of a joint tenancy are the right of survivorship and the four unities. The right of survivorship means that on the death of any one joint tenant, the entire co-owned estate devolves to the other joint tenant(s). The four unities are: • unity of possession—each co-owner is entitled to each and every part of the asset as the other co-owner and cannot be excluded from their rights in respect of it • unity of title—every joint tenant’s

Schemes of arrangement Schemes of arrangement are governed by sections 895–901 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). While CA 2006 does not prescribe the process specifically, it defines the process indirectly by prescribing the requirements for the court to sanction a proposed scheme. Following negotiation of a scheme proposal and the sending of the practice statement letter to the company’s creditors and/or members, an application must be made to the Companies Court to convene meetings of the relevant members or creditors. The application must be accompanied by a witness statement by an appropriate officer of the company. For more information, see Practice Notes: Schemes of arrangement—process and statutory framework and Indicative timetable for a scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006. The Chancery Division of the High Court also issued a Practice Direction which provides detailed guidance on the processes and procedures for implementing

We refer you to the following: HM Land Registry: Practice guide 24: private trusts of land. In particular, see paragraph 7.2.2—Using a deed of appointment: • where a trustee has been dismissed or replaced under a power contained in the trust instrument. You will need to lodge a certified copy of the trust instrument containing

We are not proposing to produce a precedent clause to cover coronavirus (COVID-19) delays in residential conveyancing because in our view, given the degree of uncertainty which exists at the present time, it would be very difficult to draft a clause that

A relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246 may be: • a business transfer—involving the transfer of an undertaking or business, or part of an undertaking or business situated immediately before the transfer in the UK to another person where there is a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity following the transfer • a service provision change—involving a change in the provider of a service (outsourcing, insourcing

Rights of way, particularly those granted a number of years ago, often cause difficulties as to their interpretation in more modern circumstances. The extent of an expressly granted easement such as a right of way depends on the interpretation of the deed granting the easement and on its context. The court will normally construe the grant in favour of the grantee or owner of the dominant land (Cordell v Second Clanfield Properties) (ie the land which has the benefit of the right of way). The land over which the right of way exists is known as the servient land. Where there is some dispute over the extent of a right of way, it may be necessary to establish what was in contemplation of the parties at the time of the grant of the right of way. The starting

In Hexstone Holdings Ltd v AHC Westlink Ltd, a lease stipulated that the tenant could determine the term on 31 October 2009 ‘by giving to the Landlord six months’ prior written notice (time to be of the essence for such notice)’. It was argued in court that the wording meant that notice would only be effective if it were given on 30 April 2009 (exactly six months before 31 October 2009) or, at the very least, it meant that if notice were given earlier, then it had to specify that it took effect on 30 April 2009. It was argued that this strict interpretation of the break clause was especially appropriate given that the break clause included the words ‘time to be of the essence for such notice’. However, the High Court rejected this interpretation.

We are not aware of any other checklists provided for deputies other than the Professional deputy standards checklist referenced in this Q&A. However,