Der Merwe v Goldman & Ors

Der Merwe v Goldman & Ors

The transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 were voluntary dispositions not supported by consideration, so the equitable rules on mistake apply. The Claimant and First Defendant acted under a relevant and sufficiently grave mistake as to the tax consequences, justifying rescission of the transactions.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Anton van der Merwe; First Defendant: Deborah Lynne Goldman; Second Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Mistake in Equity, Rescission of Voluntary Dispositions, Inheritance Tax, Resulting Trusts, Retrospective Tax Legislation
Equity Trusts Taxation Mistake in Equity Rescission of Voluntary Dispositions Inheritance Tax Resulting Trusts Retrospective Tax Legislation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Anton van der Merwe

Claimant

Deborah Lynne Goldman

First Defendant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 can be set aside for mistake under equitable principles
  2. 2 Whether the equitable rules or common law rules on mistake apply to the transactions
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant and First Defendant gave consideration for the settlement and transfer

Ratio Decidendi

The transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 were voluntary dispositions not supported by consideration, so the equitable rules on mistake apply. The Claimant and First Defendant acted under a relevant and sufficiently grave mistake as to the tax consequences, justifying rescission of the transactions.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The transfer of 24 March 2006 and the settlement and transfer of 27 March 2006 are set aside on grounds of mistake.