Ludlow Trust Company Limited v John Homfray

Ludlow Trust Company Limited v John Homfray

The phrase 'trusts subsisting' in clause 6 of the 1945 settlement refers to the trusts of a Fund which have not failed or determined for want of beneficiaries, not for want of assets. At Simon’s death without issue, the trusts of both David’s and Angela’s Funds were still subsisting, even if the capital of David’s Fund had been distributed. Therefore, the assets of Simon’s Fund are held on the trusts of Angela’s and David’s Funds equally. The trustee is permitted to administer Angela’s Fund on the footing that Angela will have no further children.

Parties
Claimant: Ludlow Trust Company Limited; Defendant: John Homfray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Trusts – Construction and Administration / Judgment After Trial of Claim Under CPR Part 8
Outcome
Declaratory judgment granted; Beddoe-type order granted
Legal Topics
Construction of Trust Instruments, Variation of Trusts, Cross Accruer Clauses, Trust Administration, Beddoe Applications
Trusts and Estates Property Law Construction of Trust Instruments Variation of Trusts Cross Accruer Clauses Trust Administration Beddoe Applications

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ludlow Trust Company Limited

Claimant

John Homfray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trusts – Construction and Administration / Judgment After Trial of Claim Under CPR Part 8

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of cross-accruer clause in 1945 settlement
  2. 2 Meaning of 'subsisting' trusts in clause 6 of the settlement
  3. 3 Effect of prior variations on construction of the settlement

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'trusts subsisting' in clause 6 of the 1945 settlement refers to the trusts of a Fund which have not failed or determined for want of beneficiaries, not for want of assets. At Simon’s death without issue, the trusts of both David’s and Angela’s Funds were still subsisting, even if the capital of David’s Fund had been distributed. Therefore, the assets of Simon’s Fund are held on the trusts of Angela’s and David’s Funds equally. The trustee is permitted to administer Angela’s Fund on the footing that Angela will have no further children.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment granted; Beddoe-type order granted

Orders

  • Declare that the assets of Simon’s Fund are since Simon’s death held on the trusts of Angela’s and David’s Funds equally.
  • Trustee may deal with the assets of Angela’s Fund on the footing that Angela will not have any more children.