AB v CD & Ors [2019] EWHC 2324 (Ch) (17 July 2019)

AB v CD & Ors [2019] EWHC 2324 (Ch) (17 July 2019)

Given the persistent deadlock among trustees, the historic disparity in treatment between the grandchildren, and the need to wind up the trust, the court must intervene and exercise the power of appointment. The available liquid funds, including the M Fund, should be appointed to the 8th and 9th defendants to redress the disparity, without disturbing prior appointments. Costs of all parties are to be paid from the trust, apportioned between liquid and distributed funds to avoid unfairness to the 8th and 9th defendants.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2324 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: AB; 1st Defendant: CD; 2nd Defendant: EF; 3rd Defendant: GD; 4th Defendant: HD; 5th Defendant: ID; 6th Defendant: JD; 7th Defendant: KD; 8th Defendant: LM; 9th Defendant: NM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Trusts—directions Application / Post Trial Judgment on Exercise of Power of Appointment and Costs
Outcome
Court intervenes to exercise power of appointment; liquid trust funds (including M Fund) to be distributed to 8th and 9th defendants; costs of all parties to be paid from trust assets, apportioned between liquid and distributed funds.
Legal Topics
Exercise of Trustee Discretion, Court Intervention in Trusts, Costs in Trust Litigation, Power of Appointment, Letters of Wishes
Trusts and Estates Equity Exercise of Trustee Discretion Court Intervention in Trusts Costs in Trust Litigation Power of Appointment Letters of Wishes

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Claimant

CD

1st Defendant

EF

2nd Defendant

GD

3rd Defendant

HD

4th Defendant

ID

5th Defendant

JD

6th Defendant

KD

7th Defendant

LM

8th Defendant

NM

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trusts—directions Application / Post Trial Judgment on Exercise of Power of Appointment and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should intervene in the exercise of a power of appointment under a discretionary trust
  2. 2 How the power of appointment should be exercised to address disparity between beneficiaries
  3. 3 How costs should be allocated between parties and trust assets

Ratio Decidendi

Given the persistent deadlock among trustees, the historic disparity in treatment between the grandchildren, and the need to wind up the trust, the court must intervene and exercise the power of appointment. The available liquid funds, including the M Fund, should be appointed to the 8th and 9th defendants to redress the disparity, without disturbing prior appointments. Costs of all parties are to be paid from the trust, apportioned between liquid and distributed funds to avoid unfairness to the 8th and 9th defendants.

Court Disposition

Court intervenes to exercise power of appointment; liquid trust funds (including M Fund) to be distributed to 8th and 9th defendants; costs of all parties to be paid from trust assets, apportioned between liquid and distributed funds.

Orders

  • Available liquid funds, including the M Fund, to be appointed to the 8th and 9th defendants.
  • Costs of claimant to be paid from liquid funds.