fbpx

Everyone Makes Mistakes

11th November 2016 By Arman Khosravi

When a businessman died, he left his substantial and complex business affairs in the hands of his executors – his brother, his widow and his accountant. As his business had been run with his brother, it was agreed that the two families’ respective interests were best served by splitting up the businesses they co-ran.

One of the more complex aspects of the demerger negotiations was a claim for VAT refunds totalling tens of millions of pounds. The deceased man’s brother considered the claims were likely to fail and offered to sell his right to pursue them to his fellow executors at a low price, which they declined. After the businesses were split up, the refunds were successfully claimed, which led the deceased man’s wife and accountant to believe that they had been misled by his brother during the negotiations.

A series of lawsuits resulted, with the wife and accountant claiming for ‘equitable compensation’ as regards the estate’s share of the VAT refunds. They brought claims of deceit, breach of contract, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty as an executor. Those claims failed and appeals were lodged with the Court of Appeal.

One of the important aspects the Court had to consider at the outset of the appeals was the effect of an ‘exoneration clause’, which stated that ‘no trustee shall be liable for any loss to the trust premises arising by reason of any improper investment made in good faith or for the negligence or fraud of any agent employed by him or by any other trustee hereof…’, the term ‘trustee’ in this instance including an executor.

The Court concluded that since the brother’s actions had been taken in good faith, the exoneration clause would apply and he was therefore not personally liable for breaches of duty.

Whilst this decision backs up the general proposition that executors and others who act in good faith and with reasonable care will not be personally liable for losses which result, it is likely to be the subject of a further appeal. In addition, the dispute might well have been avoided altogether had more attention been given at an early stage to the possible outcome of a successful claim for the recovery of the VAT.

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...