Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) & Ors

Jemma Trust Company Ltd v Kippax Beaumont Lewis (A Firm) & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that although Kippax Beaumont Lewis were negligent in certain respects, the claimant failed to prove that such negligence caused any loss, as there was no real prospect that the Court of Protection or Lady Hulton's receivers would have agreed to a deed of variation at a lower price. In the CGT action, the court found that the solicitors acted reasonably in advising the vesting of assets in trustees after obtaining a certificate of discharge, balancing the inheritance tax advantage against the capital gains tax liability. The appeals by the claimant were dismissed and the cross-appeal by the solicitors was allowed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jemma Trust Company Limited; Defendants/respondent: Kippax Beaumont Lewis (a firm) and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; order for inquiry set aside.
Legal Topics
Executor and Trustee Duties, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Court of Protection, Deed of Variation, Professional Negligence by Solicitors
Trusts and Estates Professional Negligence Taxation Executor and Trustee Duties Inheritance Tax Capital Gains Tax Court of Protection Deed of Variation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jemma Trust Company Limited

Claimant/appellant

Kippax Beaumont Lewis (a firm) and others

Defendants/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kippax Beaumont Lewis were negligent in their advice and conduct regarding the application to the Court of Protection for a deed of variation and related tax planning.
  2. 2 Whether any negligence found was causative of loss to the claimant.
  3. 3 Whether the solicitors were negligent in relation to capital gains tax advice and the timing of asset vesting.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that although Kippax Beaumont Lewis were negligent in certain respects, the claimant failed to prove that such negligence caused any loss, as there was no real prospect that the Court of Protection or Lady Hulton's receivers would have agreed to a deed of variation at a lower price. In the CGT action, the court found that the solicitors acted reasonably in advising the vesting of assets in trustees after obtaining a certificate of discharge, balancing the inheritance tax advantage against the capital gains tax liability. The appeals by the claimant were dismissed and the cross-appeal by the solicitors was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; order for inquiry set aside.

Orders

  • Claimant's appeals in both DoV and CGT actions dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal by Kippax Beaumont Lewis allowed; order for inquiry as to loss set aside.