Vaughan-Jones & Anor v Vaughan-Jones & Ors

Vaughan-Jones & Anor v Vaughan-Jones & Ors

The court found convincing evidence that all relevant parties intended the Deed of Variation to be effective for Inheritance Tax purposes and that the omission of the required statement was a mistake. Rectification is justified to include the statement required by section 142(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, but not for Capital Gains Tax, as there was insufficient evidence of intention regarding that tax. There are real issues between the parties justifying rectification, and the question of consideration under section 142(3) is for the tax tribunal, not this court.

Parties
Claimant: John Ellis Rees Vaughan-Jones; Claimant: Emlyn Griffiths; Defendant: Barbara Elizabeth Vaughan-Jones; Defendant: Robert Meuric Wyn Vaughan-Jones; Defendant: Richard Henry Vaughan-Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (rectification of Deed of Variation) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Rectification granted in part
Legal Topics
Rectification of Documents, Inheritance Tax, Deed of Variation, Mistake in Legal Documents
Equity Taxation Wills and Probate Rectification of Documents Inheritance Tax Deed of Variation Mistake in Legal Documents

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Ellis Rees Vaughan-Jones

Claimant

Emlyn Griffiths

Claimant

Barbara Elizabeth Vaughan-Jones

Defendant

Robert Meuric Wyn Vaughan-Jones

Defendant

Richard Henry Vaughan-Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (rectification of Deed of Variation) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 3 of the Deed of Variation should be rectified to include the required statement for Inheritance Tax Act 1984 section 142(2)
  2. 2 Whether the omission was a mistake justifying rectification
  3. 3 Whether rectification should also include reference to Capital Gains Tax Act 1992 section 62(7)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found convincing evidence that all relevant parties intended the Deed of Variation to be effective for Inheritance Tax purposes and that the omission of the required statement was a mistake. Rectification is justified to include the statement required by section 142(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, but not for Capital Gains Tax, as there was insufficient evidence of intention regarding that tax. There are real issues between the parties justifying rectification, and the question of consideration under section 142(3) is for the tax tribunal, not this court.

Court Disposition

Rectification granted in part

Orders

  • Clause 3 of the Deed of Variation is to be deleted and replaced with a statement electing for section 142(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to apply.
  • No rectification in respect of Capital Gains Tax Act 1992 section 62(7).