This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Private Client

Davey v Bailey

Judgment Date: 26 Feb 2021

A recent judgment of the High Court, Chancery Division in Cardiff helpfully summarises the current state of the law in relation to deathbed gifts.

View case

Members
Richard Fowler

Practice areas
Private Client

(1) Michael Rittson-Thomas (2) Hugo Rittson-Thomas (3) Kim Hughes v Oxfordshire County Council (2019)

Judgment Date: 21 Feb 2019

A local authority which had sold land granted to it under the Schools Sites Act 1841 s.2 held the proceeds of sale on trust for the original grantor's descendants. Section 14, which prevented the statutory right of reverter, operated only where the land was continuing to be used for educational purposes within s.2: it did not a prevent a trust arising where the school had been closed and the site kept vacant pending its sale. A local authority's intention to use the proceeds of sale to meet part of the costs of constructing a new school did not amount to s.2 use for the purposes of education so as to engage s.14.

View case

Members
Matthew Smith

Practice areas
Private Client

Sueda Yusuf (Claimant) v (1) Tanju Yusuf (2) Pekalp Properties Ltd (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Ors (2019)

Judgment Date: 28 Jan 2019

In a dispute relating to a family-owned property company, the court granted an unfair prejudice petition and determined issues on the evidence, including the individual shareholdings of the respective family members and whether any were held on trust, and the status of purported share transfer and trust documentation.

View case

Members
Timothy Evans

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Private Client

(1) Michael Rittson-Thomas (2) Hugo Rittson-Thomas (3) Rupert Rittson-Thomas (4) Kim Hughes v Oxfordshire County Council (2018)

Judgment Date: 09 Mar 2018

The Schools Sites Act 1841 s.2 allowed land to be granted as a site for a school and to revert to the grantor when that use ceased, unless s.14 applied and the land was sold or exchanged for a more eligible site. Section 14 did not mean that in order to avoid the statutory reverter, the sale or exchange always had to be carried out before, or at the same time as, the school was moved to new premises.

View case

Members
Matthew Smith

Practice areas
Charities
Real Estate
Private Client

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor (2018)

Judgment Date: 28 Feb 2018

The court construed the Limitation Act 1980 s.21(1)(b), which provided that no limitation period was applicable to actions by a beneficiary under a trust to recover trust property in the possession of the trustee or previously received by him and converted to his use. The mere fact that misappropriated trust property had remained legally and beneficially owned by corporate vehicles throughout the misappropriation, rather than becoming vested in law or equity in the defaulting directors, did not mean that s.21(1)(b) was inapplicable.

View case

Members
Christopher R Parker KC
Matthew Smith

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Insolvency & Restructuring
Private Client

Courtwood Holdings SA v Woodley Properties Ltd & ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 14 Jul 2017

A proprietary injunction preventing a company from disposing, dealing with or diminishing the value of overage held on trust was varied to allow the company to pay surveyor's fees, incurred for negotiating an advance against the total overage ultimately due, from the money received as a result of the surveyor's successful negotiation.

View case

Members
Gregory Banner KC
Mark Cunningham KC

Practice areas
Private Client

Nigel Stephen Clegg v Estate & Personal Representatives of Andrew Gregory Pache (Deceased) & 5 Ors (2017)

Judgment Date: 11 May 2017

Where a company director had breached his fiduciary duty by diverting funds and business opportunities to a second company in which he had a concealed beneficial interest, the starting point should be that the second company account for all of its profits during the relevant period.

View case

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Private Client

In Re The Estate Of Patel v Patel (2017)

Judgment Date: 10 Feb 2017

The court refused to grant the claimant probate of an alleged will of his mother, holding that he had forged the will.

View case

Members
Laurie Scher

Practice areas
Private Client

Barnsley v Noble (2016)

Judgment Date: 02 Aug 2016

The court considered the proper interpretation of an exoneration clause contained in a will to relieve trustees under trusts set out in the will of personal liability in respect of certain breaches of duty by them.

View case

Practice areas
Private Client

Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fielding (2016)

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2016

A judge had erred in granting summary judgment to the directors of a company in liquidation in respect of a claim for breach of their fiduciary duty, on the basis that the claim was time-barred. No limitation period applied to the claim by reason of the Limitation Act 1980 s.21(1)(b) and, alternatively, the availability of a postponed limitation period, such that the proceedings had been started in time under s.32, could not be determined on an application for summary judgment.

View case

Members
Christopher R Parker KC
Matthew Smith

Practice areas
Insolvency & Restructuring
Private Client

Wilkinson v JS Property Holdings Inc (2016)

Judgment Date: 27 May 2016

The claimants were entitled to maintain a tracing claim in relation to a property which had been purchased by a company using damages held on trust for the claimants. Their claim was not statute barred because a relevant fact which they alleged had been concealed could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered at any earlier date.

View case

Members
Hannah Ilett

Practice areas
Private Client

Generator Developments LLP v Lidl UK GmbH (2016)

Judgment Date: 13 Apr 2016

It was not fatal to a claim to an equity under the principle in Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch. 43 that negotiations between the parties were expressly subject to contract. However, the court determined that two companies which had entered into negotiations with a view to acquiring a property as joint venture partners had not entered into an arrangement or understanding sufficient to give rise to a Pallant vMorgan equity.

View case

Members
Paul Clarke

Practice areas
Real Estate
Private Client

(1) Gerald Abraham Davidson (2) Maxine Yvette Davidson v Roger Hugh Knight Seelig & 5 Ors (2016)

Judgment Date: 15 Mar 2016

The purported protector of a trust was refused permission to re-amend his defence and bring a counterclaim in proceedings challenging the validity of his appointment. The application for re-amendment had been made very late, jeopardising the trial date, and raised significant new issues without any explanation for the delay. The counterclaim stood no realistic prospect of success since the protector was acting without the concurrence of his co-protector and therefore lacked standing to claim the relief sought.

View case

Practice areas
Private Client

FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious & Cedar Capital (2016)

Judgment Date: 02 Mar 2016

The court examined the principles of tracing and determined that where a fiduciary had paid trust money into one account and its own money into another account held at the same bank, the funds could not be said to have been mixed. In such circumstances, the principles of tracing established in Hallett's Estate, Re (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696 rather than those established in Oatway, Re [1903] 2 Ch. 356 applied.

View case

Members
Christopher Pymont KC*
Matthew Collings KC

Practice areas
Private Client

Re Allanfield Property Insurance Services Limited (2015)

Judgment Date: 17 Dec 2015

On an application under the Insolvency Act 1986 Sch.B1 para.63 by the administrators of two insolvent insurance intermediaries, the court gave directions for the distribution of funds held in the companies' client accounts which were subject to the statutory trust regime in Chapter 5 of the Client Assets Sourcebook in the Financial Conduct Authority Handbook.

View case

Members
Thomas Munby KC

Practice areas
Insolvency & Restructuring
Private Client

Choudhury v Stepney Shahjalal Mosque and Cultural Centre Ltd (2015)

Judgment Date: 12 Feb 2015

Proceedings concerning the trustees of a company limited by guarantee that was a registered charity were charity proceedings under the Charities Act 2011 s.115(2) that required permission from the Charity Commission or the court. The proceedings were stayed and an interim injunction preventing a trustee election was continued pending a decision on permission.

View case

Members
Duncan McCombe

Practice areas
Charities
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Private Client

Dalriada Trustees Ltd v David Alexander Faulds (2011)

Judgment Date: 15 Dec 2011

A Pension Reciprocation Plan incorporating a Maximising Pension Value Arrangement, whereby two pension schemes made reciprocal loans of funds to specific members of each other's schemes in order to facilitate access to pension capital prior to retirement, was invalid by virtue of the Finance Act 2004 s.173. The court explained the application of s.173 and defined some of its terms.

View case

Members

Practice areas

Private Client

Cadogan Petroleum Plc & 9 Ors v Mark Tolly & 10 Ors (2011)

Judgment Date: 07 Sep 2011

On the facts as pleaded and in light of the decision in Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd (In Administration) (2011) EWCA Civ 347, (2011) Bus LR 1126, proprietary claims based on an allegation that a company group's former chief operating officer had accepted bribes or secret commissions in the course of various company transactions had no prospect of success.

View case

Members
Richard Morgan KC
Thomas Munby KC

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Private Client

Harris v Jones (2011)

Judgment Date: 14 Jun 2011

John Dagnall appeared for William Harris (“Harris”) who set up a joint-venture with Richard Jones (“Jones”) called Zetnet Limited (“Zetnet”) each holding one share (50% each). Harris transferred his one share to Jones who executed an express declaration of trust in favour of Harris and a stock-transfer form back to Harris. In 2007 Jones and others effected a series of transactions without informing Harris by which they lent £70,000 to Zetnet and reconstructed the shareholding with Harris’ share supposedly amounting to 0.1% of the total, Jones having 40% and others having 59.9%. In 2008 the entire shareholding was sold for a net £252,000. Jones asserted that Harris was left with 0.1% i.e. £252 (it having turned out that a rebate on the purchase price, had in fact been funded by solicitors). Harris asserted breach of trust and company unfair prejudice.

View case

Practice areas
Company, Partnerships & LLPs
Private Client

Bonham v Blake Lapthorn Linell (2006)

Judgment Date: 16 Oct 2006

A trustee had acted properly and reasonably on the advice of solicitors in commencing and pursuing litigation on a trust matter as the claims in the litigation had a reasonable prospect of success. Consequently, the trustee had not acted in breach of trust by paying monies out of the trust fund in satisfaction of the costs of the action.

View case

Members
Siward Atkins KC

Practice areas
Commercial Disputes
Private Client

1 2 3

Results 1 - 20 of 50