Der Merwe v Goldman & Ors [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch) (11 April 2016)

Der Merwe v Goldman & Ors [2016] EWHC 790 (Ch) (11 April 2016)

The transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 were voluntary dispositions, not contracts for value, and were entered into under a fundamental mistake as to their tax consequences. The mistake was sufficiently grave to justify equitable rescission. The equitable rules for mistake apply, and it would be unconscionable for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 790 (Ch)
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
Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / First Instance Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Rescission for Mistake, Inheritance Tax, Voluntary Dispositions, Resulting Trusts, Equitable Relief, Tax Consequences of Settlements
Equity Trusts and Estates Taxation Rescission for Mistake Inheritance Tax Voluntary Dispositions Resulting Trusts Equitable Relief +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / First Instance 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 for rescission for mistake apply to the transactions in question
  3. 3 Whether the transactions were voluntary dispositions or contracts for value

Ratio Decidendi

The transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 were voluntary dispositions, not contracts for value, and were entered into under a fundamental mistake as to their tax consequences. The mistake was sufficiently grave to justify equitable rescission. The equitable rules for mistake apply, and it would be unconscionable for the beneficiaries to resist rescission. Public policy and risk-acceptance arguments do not preclude relief.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Transactions of 24 and 27 March 2006 set aside on grounds of mistake
  • Precise form of order to be determined after hearing counsel