References: [2005] EWCA Civ 248
Links: Bailii
Ratio: The defendant firm of solicitors, acting as executors had sought to arrange matters to minimise Inheritance Tax. A deed of variation was put in place after approval by the court, but the CTO interpreted the deed differently. The executors believed the interpretation to be wrong and sought advantage from that interpretation on counsel’s advice. Negligence was alleged in having paid an excess sum in respect of a life interest, and in the incurring of unnecessary costs. Negligence was found in several respects.
Held: The amount paid by the executors to achieve the variation, though more than was a approriate in actuarial terms, had been the amount needed in order to achieve the Court of Protection order, and was justifiable accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.
Statutes: Inheritance Tax Act 1984 142(1), Mental Health Act 1983
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1476, Times 30-Oct-03, [2003] NPC 126, [2004] 1 All ER 510, [2003] WTLR 1427, [2004] 1 Costs LR 66, [2004] 1 WLR 646)
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . . - Appeal from – Jemma Trust Company Limited v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others ChD (Bailii, [2004] EWHC 703 (Ch))
. . - Cited – In re DML ([1965] Ch 1133)
. . - Cited – In re W (EEM) ([1971] Ch 123)
It would be for the ‘benefit’ of the patient to exercise the powers conferred by section 95(1) of the 1983 Act so as to enable there to be done something which the patient would have wished to do if he had been able to act for himself. . . - Cited – Re King’s Will Trusts, Assheton v Boyne ChD ([1964] Ch 542)
An assent by personal representatives is ‘the instrument or act whereby a personal representative effectuates a testamentary disposition by transferring the subject-matter of the disposition to the person entitled to it’, and must be in writing even . . - Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hawley ([1928] 1 KB 578)
When a legatee of shares received them more than a year after the death, he was not treated as receiving all the accrued dividends as income of the year in which the shares became vested in him, but rather, by relation back to the death, in the year . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis and others CA (Bailii, [2004] EWCA Civ 1645)
The defendants asserted that they had executed a trust deed on the advice of senior counsel in conference. The judge said the notes of the meeting did not justify that conclusion. The firm sought permission to appeal.
Held: There was room for . . - See Also – Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Liptrott, Forrester, Kippax Beaumont Lewis CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1476, Times 30-Oct-03, [2003] NPC 126, [2004] 1 All ER 510, [2003] WTLR 1427, [2004] 1 Costs LR 66, [2004] 1 WLR 646)
Solicitors sought to challenge an order disallowing a costs item for the administration of an estate which included a percentage of the estate.
Held: Despite advances in time recording, ‘we see no reason to say that it is no longer appropriate . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 22 March 2020
Ref: 223377 br>
The post Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) and others: CA 11 Mar 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.