Lawie v Lawie & Ors [2012] EWHC 2940 (Ch) (26 October 2012)

Lawie v Lawie & Ors [2012] EWHC 2940 (Ch) (26 October 2012)

There is convincing proof that the settlors intended the trust to benefit both their children and grandchildren; the omission of the children's names as potential beneficiaries was a drafting mistake; the court exercises its discretion to rectify the trust deed to reflect the true intention.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2940 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sydney Lawie; Defendant: Anthony Paul Lawie; Defendant: Lesley Patricia Ely; Defendant: Roger Benjamin Ely; Defendant: Rebecca Annabel Lawie; Defendant: Jamie Paul Lawie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Rectification of Trust Deed (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing of Rectification Application
Outcome
Rectification granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust, Mistake in Trust Deed, Discretionary Trusts, Beneficiary Class, Court's Discretion in Rectification
Equity Trusts Rectification of Trust Mistake in Trust Deed Discretionary Trusts Beneficiary Class Court's Discretion in Rectification

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydney Lawie

Claimant

Anthony Paul Lawie

Defendant

Lesley Patricia Ely

Defendant

Roger Benjamin Ely

Defendant

Rebecca Annabel Lawie

Defendant

Jamie Paul Lawie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification of Trust Deed (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing of Rectification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trust deed should be rectified to include the settlors' children as potential beneficiaries
  2. 2 Whether there is convincing proof of the settlors' intention to benefit both children and grandchildren
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to rectify the trust deed

Ratio Decidendi

There is convincing proof that the settlors intended the trust to benefit both their children and grandchildren; the omission of the children's names as potential beneficiaries was a drafting mistake; the court exercises its discretion to rectify the trust deed to reflect the true intention.

Court Disposition

Rectification granted

Orders

  • The trust deed is rectified to include the settlors' children (Anthony and Lesley) as potential beneficiaries in Part 3 of the trust deed.