fbpx

Court Allows Trust Error to Be Corrected

5th July 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Mistakes do happen, and in some circumstances they can be rectified by the courts.

In a recent case, the wife of a man who died in 2015 went to court after a mistake in dealing with a trust created under his will left a substantial potential Inheritance Tax (IHT) bill to pay.

The man’s estate had been passed into the trust and his wife was to receive the income from the trust for life. The trustees had the discretionary power to create trusts for the benefit of other beneficiaries and the power to advance the capital to the man’s widow for her benefit.

Some distributions had been made prior to the trustees taking control of the assets. They then executed a deed of appointment which terminated the widow’s life interest and brought the discretionary trusts into effect. They believed this would have no IHT implications. They were wrong: the termination of the wife’s interest created an immediate and substantial IHT liability.

The trustees went to court to rescind the deed of appointment on the ground that had they been properly advised of the IHT consequences, they would not have executed it.

In order for a mistake to be rectified, certain conditions must be met. These are:

  • There must be a clear mistake, not just an action borne out of ignorance or inadvertence. There must be a false belief in the outcome of the decision;
  • If the mistake is the result of carelessness, it may still be capable of being rectified if the person making the mistake did not deliberately run the risk of being wrong; and
  • The effect of the mistake must be such that the recipient of the property could not in conscience retain it in the circumstances.

The injustice or unfairness of the mistaken disposition must be objectively evaluated given the facts of the case.

The court ruled that the distributions made informally were invalid, since they had to be made by deed and also were not made with the consent of the life tenant of the trust (the widow).

The further advances were set aside on the grounds of mistake.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...