Pemberton v Pemberton & Ors

Pemberton v Pemberton & Ors

The proposed variation is for the benefit of the minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries, as required by the Variation of Trusts Act 1958. The arrangement does not amount to a resettlement but is a permissible variation. The benefits, including extension of the perpetuity period, modernisation of administrative powers, preservation of tax advantages, and inclusion of additional classes of beneficiaries, outweigh any potential disadvantages. The court exercises its discretion to approve the variation.

Parties
Claimant: Richard Francis Anthony Pemberton; First Defendant: Anthony Pemberton; Second Defendant: William Robert Bartle Edwards; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant; Fifth Defendant: Jemima Pemberton; Sixth Defendant: Rose Pemberton; Seventh Defendant: Seventh Defendant (Henry Pemberton); Eighth Defendant: Eighth Defendant; Ninth Defendant: Ninth Defendant; Tenth Defendant: Harriet Pemberton; Eleventh Defendant: Eleventh Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (variation of Trusts) / Judgment on Application for Approval of Variation of Trusts
Outcome
Application for approval of variation of trusts granted
Legal Topics
Variation of Trusts, Perpetuity Periods, Trust Administration, Beneficiaries' Interests, Taxation of Trusts
Trusts and Estates Equity Variation of Trusts Perpetuity Periods Trust Administration Beneficiaries' Interests Taxation of Trusts

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

William Robert Bartle Edwards

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Jemima Pemberton

Fifth Defendant

Rose Pemberton

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant (Henry Pemberton)

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

Harriet Pemberton

Tenth Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Eleventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed variation of the Pemberton Settled Estates should be approved under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 on behalf of minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries
  2. 2 Whether the variation constitutes a resettlement or a permissible variation
  3. 3 Whether the proposed changes are for the benefit of the relevant beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed variation is for the benefit of the minor, unborn, and unascertained beneficiaries, as required by the Variation of Trusts Act 1958. The arrangement does not amount to a resettlement but is a permissible variation. The benefits, including extension of the perpetuity period, modernisation of administrative powers, preservation of tax advantages, and inclusion of additional classes of beneficiaries, outweigh any potential disadvantages. The court exercises its discretion to approve the variation.

Court Disposition

Application for approval of variation of trusts granted

Orders

  • The proposed variation of the Pemberton Settled Estates is approved under the Variation of Trusts Act 1958.
  • The claimant is to pay the costs of all parties on the indemnity basis, subject to further submissions if any.