Hamilton v Hamilton & Anor [2016] EWHC 1132 (Ch) (13 May 2016)

Hamilton v Hamilton & Anor [2016] EWHC 1132 (Ch) (13 May 2016)

The assets of the Rainbow Foundation did not form part of David Hamilton's estate and did not pass under the Will. The Foundation was validly constituted under Liechtenstein law, operated as intended, and was not a bare nominee or sham. The intention to evade UK tax, even if present, did not render the Foundation void under Liechtenstein law. The assets passed to Carolyn and Alan according to the Foundation's regulations, and Alan's claim for equal division under the Will fails.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1132 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alan Hamilton; First Defendant: Carolyn Hamilton; Second Defendant: Douglas Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Derivative Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Liechtenstein Foundation Validity, Tax Evasion, Inheritance Tax Liability, Beneficial Ownership, Estate Administration
Trusts and Estates Taxation Private International Law Liechtenstein Foundation Validity Tax Evasion Inheritance Tax Liability Beneficial Ownership Estate Administration

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Hamilton

Claimant

Carolyn Hamilton

First Defendant

Douglas Smith

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assets of Rainbow Foundation form part of David Hamilton's estate and pass under the Will
  2. 2 Whether Rainbow Foundation was a bare nominee or a sham
  3. 3 Whether Rainbow Foundation was void under Liechtenstein law due to tax evasion intention

Ratio Decidendi

The assets of the Rainbow Foundation did not form part of David Hamilton's estate and did not pass under the Will. The Foundation was validly constituted under Liechtenstein law, operated as intended, and was not a bare nominee or sham. The intention to evade UK tax, even if present, did not render the Foundation void under Liechtenstein law. The assets passed to Carolyn and Alan according to the Foundation's regulations, and Alan's claim for equal division under the Will fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Alan Hamilton's claim for equal division of Rainbow Foundation assets under the Will is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs against Douglas Smith due to settlement.