Pemberton v Pemberton & Ors [2016] EWHC 2345 (Ch) (13 July 2016)

Pemberton v Pemberton & Ors [2016] EWHC 2345 (Ch) (13 July 2016)

The court approved the variation because it was satisfied that the proposed changes were for the benefit of minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries, improved the security and flexibility of their interests, preserved significant tax advantages, and modernised the trust in line with current legal and social standards. The arrangement did not amount to a resettlement but was a permissible variation under the 1958 Act.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2345 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Francis Anthony Pemberton; First Defendant: Anthony Pemberton; Second Defendant: Second Defendant; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant (minor): Fifth Defendant; Sixth Defendant (minor): Sixth Defendant; Seventh Defendant (minor): Seventh Defendant; Eighth Defendant: Eighth Defendant; Ninth Defendant: Ninth Defendant; Tenth Defendant (minor): Tenth Defendant; Eleventh Defendant: Eleventh Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (variation of Trusts Act 1958) / Judgment on Application for Approval of Variation of Trust
Outcome
Application for approval of variation granted.
Legal Topics
Variation of Trusts, Perpetuity Periods, Trust Administration, Beneficiary Interests, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Settled Land Act, Discretionary Trusts
Trusts and Estates Equity Variation of Trusts Perpetuity Periods Trust Administration Beneficiary Interests Inheritance Tax Capital Gains Tax +2 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Francis Anthony Pemberton

Claimant

Anthony Pemberton

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Fifth Defendant (minor)

Sixth Defendant

Sixth Defendant (minor)

Seventh Defendant

Seventh Defendant (minor)

Eighth Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Tenth Defendant

Tenth Defendant (minor)

Eleventh Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (variation of Trusts Act 1958) / Judgment on Application for Approval of Variation of Trust

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed variation of the Pemberton Settled Estates should be approved under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 as being for the benefit of minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed changes amount to a variation or a resettlement.
  3. 3 Whether the extension of the perpetuity period, conferral of additional administrative powers, and changes to beneficiary classes are for the benefit of all relevant beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi

The court approved the variation because it was satisfied that the proposed changes were for the benefit of minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries, improved the security and flexibility of their interests, preserved significant tax advantages, and modernised the trust in line with current legal and social standards. The arrangement did not amount to a resettlement but was a permissible variation under the 1958 Act.

Court Disposition

Application for approval of variation granted.

Orders

  • Variation of the Pemberton Settled Estates approved as per the draft scheme of arrangement.
  • Costs to be paid by the claimant on the indemnity basis, subject to further submissions if any.