Armstrong v Armstrong [2019] EWHC 2259 (Ch) (23 August 2019)

Armstrong v Armstrong [2019] EWHC 2259 (Ch) (23 August 2019)

The court found clear evidence that the settlors intended the trusts to benefit their daughters as default beneficiaries, that the power of appointment should lapse on the death of the last life assured, and that the trust property was sufficiently identified by the context of the application and policy issued. The errors and omissions in the trust documents were mistakes not reflecting the settlors' intentions. Rectification and declaratory relief were therefore granted to correct the documents and clarify the trust terms.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2259 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Catherine Armstrong; First Defendant: Catherine Armstrong; Second Defendant: Elaine Sutherland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (cpr) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trusts, Construction of Trust Documents, Certainty of Subject Matter, Power of Appointment, Declaratory Relief
Equity Trusts and Estates Rectification of Trusts Construction of Trust Documents Certainty of Subject Matter Power of Appointment Declaratory Relief

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Armstrong

Claimant

Catherine Armstrong

First Defendant

Elaine Sutherland

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (cpr) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2005 and 2007 trusts should be rectified to correct errors and omissions in the trust documents
  2. 2 Whether declaratory relief should be granted to clarify the construction of the trust terms, including the identification of trust property and beneficiaries
  3. 3 Whether the power of appointment in the trusts is valid and when it lapses

Ratio Decidendi

The court found clear evidence that the settlors intended the trusts to benefit their daughters as default beneficiaries, that the power of appointment should lapse on the death of the last life assured, and that the trust property was sufficiently identified by the context of the application and policy issued. The errors and omissions in the trust documents were mistakes not reflecting the settlors' intentions. Rectification and declaratory relief were therefore granted to correct the documents and clarify the trust terms.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration as to the identification of the policy held on the terms of the 2007 trust
  • Rectification of the 2007 trust to insert 'Catherine Armstrong 50% and Elaine Smith 50%' as default beneficiaries in Part 2 of the Trust Schedule