‘Recently published guidance from the Charity Commission tries to provide clarity on when donations to English and Welsh charities, including universities, should – or must – be refused or returned, but the question of when to say no remains complex and nuanced.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd April 2024
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a ruling that a law firm was entitled to fire a partner who was accused of “topping up” legal aid fees with cash from a client’s father.’
Legal Futures, 7th August 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Barton & Booth-v-The Queen [2020] EWCA Crim 575. The Court of Appeal considers whether the new definition of ‘dishonesty’ given by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) (trading as Cockfords Club) [2017] UKSC 67 applies in criminal cases.’
Pump Court Chambers, 30th April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘A husband and wife who are the joint freeholders of a block of flats, granted a number of leases of various parts of that block to one or other of themselves. These were found to be disposals which were exempt from the provisions of part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’), either because these were gifts to family under s.4(2)(e) or disposals within a family under s.4(2)(h).’
Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The issue in this appeal was whether a movement of capital between the United Kingdom and Jersey should be regarded as an internal transaction taking place within a single member state for the purposes of article 56 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community; and if not, whether the refusal of relief under section 23 in respect of the gift to the Coulter Trust is justifiable under EU law.’
UKSC Blog, 16th October 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Josh Lewison analyses the approaches available to charity trustees when they encounter tainted gifts, in an article recently published by Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 27th August 2019
Source: www.radcliffechambers.com
‘This case relates to a point of statutory construction in the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 90C(1)(a). The question was whether goods, services, or facilities provided free-of-charge or at a discount to a candidate for election need to be declared by the candidate as an election expense even if they had not been authorised by the candidate, their election agent, or someone else authorised by the candidate or agent.’
UKSC Blog, 29th January 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘As Coronation Street fans will know, Aidan Connor (played by Shayne Ward) tragically committed suicide earlier this year. Following his death, his family were shocked to discover that he left his share of his business, Underworld, to his friend and former business partner Alya Nazir. Aidan’s half-sister, Carla Connor, was particularly outraged by this. She had gifted her interest in the business to Aidan earlier in the year, after he had made his will but before his death. Carla and family consulted a local solicitor, Adam Barlow, who suggested that they could challenge the will on the grounds that Aidan lacked capacity due to depression.’
Family Law, 8th August 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘What are the rules governing retrospective approval of gifts and payments for voluntary care? Simon Edwards, barrister at 39 Essex Chambers, discusses Re HH (attorney’s application for retrospective approval) [2018] EWCOP 13 which demonstrates the necessity for someone who has power of attorney to retain proper records of care payments.’
Family Law, 20th July 2018
Source: www.familylaw.co.uk
‘Struck-off solicitor Phil Shiner has had his bankruptcy extended by five years after he gifted away nearly £500,000 worth of assets to family members before declaring himself bankrupt and was unable to pay £6.5m back to his creditors.’
Legal Futures, 26th February 2018
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Gilpin and ors v Legg [2017] EWHC 3220 (Ch) is a gift (at least to land law examiners) that is going to keep on giving. This is not just because of the claims discussed – whether beach huts were fixtures or chattels, whether a lease had been granted to the owners of the huts, whether the landowner was estopped from obtaining possession, and even certain pleadings issues (the pleadings do seem to have been a little, erm, jejeune) – but also because HHJ Matthews (who I’m ashamed to say I haven’t come across) added his tuppenies to a couple of controversies, not least making some important observations on the correctness of the Supreme Court judgment in Berrisford v Mexfield. Part of the problem in the case was that the events which underpinned the various claims happened over many years, were oral, and, in some cases, involved transfers of title (the issues of which were neatly stepped over by the judge who referred to bona fide purchasers, so we might be dealing with unregistered land, a point not made clear).’
Nearly Legal, 8th January 2018
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Fabian Society said the evidence from a series of focus groups conducted after the general election in May showed that Labour voters were as hostile to inheritance tax as Conservatives. The thinktank said the tax, seen as illegitimate and unfair by voters, should be replaced by the levying of income tax on gifts and bequests.’
The Guardian, 4th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Wills are typically described as “ambulatory” which means that they possess no force or effect prior to the death of the testator. Where the beneficiary of a gift predeceases the testator then as a general rule the gift will fail or “lapse”. Note that a deemed predecease will arise in various cases such as the effect of divorce on a gift made by one spouse to another. The effect is that for the purpose of any gift to that spouse the survivor will be deemed to have predeceased the testator[1]. Another less well known example is the effect of renunciation of a gift.’
Tanfield Chambers, 19th February 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘As the opening comments of Charles Hollander QC in his judgment in King v Dubrey [2014] EWHC 2083, make clear, a donatio mortis causa (DMC) takes effect as a historic and anomalous exception to the requirements of the Wills Act. It involves… a present gift which takes effect in the future and remains conditional until the donor dies. On death it becomes absolute. It has previously been described as being of “an amphibious nature, being a gift which is neither entirely inter vivos nor testamentary.” The task for the Court is to distinguish between a genuine DMC and an attempt to make a testamentary gift other than in accordance with the Wills Act. The test has, for over one hundred and fifty years, been a high one:
“…no case of this description ought to prevail unless it is supported by evidence of the clearest and most unequivocal character.”’
Hardwicke Chambers, 16th February 2015
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘As the opening comments of Charles Hollander QC in his judgment in King v Dubrey [2014] EWHC 2083, make clear, a donatio mortis causa (DMC) takes effect as a historic and anomalous exception to the requirements of the Wills Act. It involves… a present gift which takes effect in the future and remains conditional until the donor dies. On death it becomes absolute. It has previously been described as being of “an amphibious nature, being a gift which is neither entirely inter vivos nor testamentary.” The task for the Court is to distinguish between a genuine DMC and an attempt to make a testamentary gift other than in accordance with the Wills Act. The test has, for over one hundred and fifty years, been a high one –
“…no case of this description ought to prevail unless it is supported by evidence of the clearest and most unequivocal character.”’
Hardwicke Chambers, 25th September 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
My purpose in this article is to highlight the sort of issues facing charities in deciding whether or not to litigate over a legacy, or residuary gift, contained in a Will. In particular, I shall be looking at a number of cases where charities have faced such difficult decisions, some of which they have got wrong.
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘The government has introduced legislation to clamp down on personal injury inducements from lawyers offering clients money or gifts such as iPads in exchange for pursuing claims.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 25th July 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
In re Robson, decd; White v Matthys and others [2014] WLR (D) 54
‘A residuary legatee’s chose in action was “property” for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Therefore, where a person who was not a permissible donor left the residue of his estate to a registered political party, and that party received and accepted the gift, the prohibition on foreign donations in section 54 of the 2000 Act was breached.’
WLR Daily, 31st January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Buzzoni and others v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2013] EWCA Civ 1684; [2014] WLR (D) 13
‘Whether property disposed of by way of gift was enjoyed to the entire or virtually entire exclusion of any benefit to the donor by contract or otherwise, and whether it constituted property “subject to a reservation” within the meaning of section 102(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1986 for the purposes of inheritance tax under the Inheritance Act 1984, depended not on whether the donor had obtained a benefit from the gifted property but whether the donee’s enjoyment of that property remained exclusive. If the benefit to the donor had no impact on, was irrelevant to and made no or virtually no difference to the donee’s enjoyment, the donee’s enjoyment was to the entire or virtually entire exclusion of any benefit to the donor and, therefore, the gifted property would be an exempt transfer and not subject to inheritance tax.’
WLR Daily, 19th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The recent Supreme Court decision in Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26 has put into sharp focus a question which has vexed English lawyers for some time: when can a donor recover a gift mistakenly made? Their Lordships ruled that there had to be a ‘causative mistake of sufficient gravity’. In the light of this ruling, the lecture will explore and try to systematise the principal competing approaches towards the recovery of mistaken gifts and to assess their underlying assumptions. How can we distinguish between mistakes which are sufficiently serious and those that are not, and what are the implications of Pitt v Holt for the law of gifts more generally? It will be argued that a pure causative mistake test may in fact be preferable to the two-stage inquiry adopted by Pitt v Holt. Properly handled, such a test could accommodate many of the concerns that often drive the call for an additional criterion of ‘sufficient gravity’.’
Date: 13th February 2014, 6.00pm
Location: UCL Faculty of Laws, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1H 0EG
Charge: Free, registration required
More information can be found here.
© Inner Temple Library 2024