“The words ‘the trust’ in sections 65F(1), 65I(1) and 65K(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006, as inserted, meant the particular failing trust to which a Trust Special Administrator had been appointed and not any other NHS trust.”
WLR Daily, 31st July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Robin Mathew’s article above discusses the decision of the Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter so far as it dealt with ‘inadequate consideration’ by trustees. But the court also dealt with the general law of mistake in dispositions of property. Here it disagreed with the Court of Appeal.”
Full story (PDF) (see p. 2)
New Square Chambers, June 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
“A heresy usually derives from the earnest application of principle without the benefit of perspective. Addressing the rule in Hastings Bass, and its heretical application over many years by the High Court, the Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter [2013] uKSC 26 has greatly narrowed its use and effect.”
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, June 2013
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
“Ayse Akgun was convicted for trying to make a fraudulent claim on her second husband’s £2.6 million estate when he died.”
Daily Telegraph, 12th July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“To widespread surprise, the Supreme Court allowed the wife’s appeal in Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun) although on a different basis from the decision of Mr Justice Moylan at first instance. For those law “nerds” amongst us, the new Supreme Court live feed added an extra frisson, with social media abuzz with speculation as to what it might mean that Lord Sumption was to give the lead judgment. It quickly became clear that this may be a red herring (for Lady Hale to give the lead judgment would have been too obvious a clue). However, a more detailed consideration of the judgment may lead us to conclude that Lord Sumption was a clue indeed and that the corporate veil has survived fully intact, albeit it with the Supreme Court wedging open some doors for family lawyers on the issues of trusts and inferences to be drawn from both pre- and post-litigation behaviour.”
New Law Journal, 27th June 2013
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
“When the Pensions Regulator, acting by the determinations panel, made a determination about a financial support direction in relation to a pension scheme, the trustees of that scheme, by virtue of their office, were persons “directly affected” by that determination for the purposes of section 96(3) of the Pensions Act 2004, and accordingly had standing as of right to refer that determination to the Upper Tribunal under that provision. Further, where any person referred such a determination of the Regulator to the Upper Tribunal under section 96(3) of the Act, the two-year time limit in section 43(9), which, prior to amendment by the Pensions Act 2011, required the Regulator to issue a financial support direction within two years of the time which he selected for determining whether the preconditions in section 43(2) for the issue of a direction had been fulfilled, did not apply to any directions which the Upper Tribunal might give regarding a financial support direction under section 103(5) and (6), or to any order made on appeal from those directions.”
WLR Daily, 21st June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The court had an inherent jurisdiction to give such directions as would enable the administrators of a regulated investment firm, holding client money under rules imposing a statutory trust, to put in place a client money distribution procedure for dealing with rejected claims and unknown claims which could provide a degree of certainty and protection and ensure a timely return of client money.”
WLR Daily, 14th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A bid by a multi-millionaire businessman to avoid inheritance tax after his death has ‘backfired’ and torn his family apart, a court has heard.”
Daily Telegraph, 10th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Supreme Court’s decision on mistake and the flawed exercise of discretion by trustees, and the impact of the decision on professional advisers and their insurers.”
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 17th May 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“The court’s jurisdiction to intervene in a decision made by trustees who were acting within their power arose only if they could be shown to have acted in breach of duty. Trustees who wished to exercise a discretion which was within their powers and sought and acted on the advice of apparently competent professional advisers not in breach of duty merely because the professional advice turned out to be incorrect.”
WLR Daily, May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 9th May 2013
“The Court of Protection has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of people who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. Among its various roles the Court is responsible for determining disputes as to the registration of enduring powers of attorney (“EPA”), and Lasting Powers of Attorney (‘LPA’), appointing new trustees, authorising certain gifts and making statutory wills.”
No. 5 Chambers, 4th February 2013
Source: www.no5.com
Day and another v Day [2013] EWCA Civ 280; [2013] WLR (D) 129
“For the purposes of the doctrine of rectification in the case of a voluntary settlement it was the subjective intention of the settlor that was of relevance in determining whether the court should order rectification and an outward expression or objective communication of that intention was unnecessary in such a case.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Government has accepted, in part, the recommendations we made in our report Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death.”
Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death
Law Commission, 21st March 2013
Source: www.lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
“Lack of writing did not necessarily mean that the circumstances of a case were not such as to give rise to a ‘Quistclose’ trust. Stipulation of an exclusive purpose for the loan was not the only circumstance of which the immediate recipient was cognisant and which negated an intention on the part of the payer, to pass away beneficial ownership so as to give rise to a resulting trust in favour of the payer.”
WLR Daily, 25th February 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A topical debate is the extent to which solicitors acting for mortgage lenders (or more precisely, their professional indemnity insurers) should bear the consequences of mortgage fraud.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th January 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Konica Minolta Business Solutions (UK) Ltd v Applegate: [2012] EWHC 3741 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 9
“When applying uniform accrual to ‘so much of any benefit’ by virtue of section 74(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 one was being directed not merely to what one might call the top slice, the benefit which actually accrued at the higher rate, but that element of a benefit package which was the subject of the higher rate. In section 74(3) the ‘benefit’ referred to was the composite of the various benefits which made up long service benefit and if the exception applied it did with regard to the entirety of such a component.”
WLR Daily, 21st December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“For the purposes of paragraph 3(7)(c) of schedule 5 to the Coal Industry Act 1994 the requirement that the rules of a new pension scheme be ‘no less advantageous’ than the previous scheme was not the same as a requirement that the rules of the new scheme be the same as the rules of the pre-existing scheme. The omission of a pro-rating provision from draft rule 33 of the Schedule to the Industry-Wide Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2973) was not a mistake in drafting and the rule fell to be construed in accordance with its express terms.”
WLR Daily, 20th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Pensions Ombudsman v EMC Europe Ltd and others: [2012] EWHC 3508 (Ch); [2012] WLR (D) 382
“The Pensions Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a scheme member to set aside a compromise agreement where successful determination of the complaint would adversely affect the rights of the parent company in circumstances where it was a necessary party to any claim to set aside the agreement but was not subject to the ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”
WLR Daily, 14th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024