Breadner & Ors v Granville-Grossman & Ors [2000] EWHC Ch 224 (28 June 2000)

Breadner & Ors v Granville-Grossman & Ors [2000] EWHC Ch 224 (28 June 2000)

The 1989 deed was not a valid exercise of the 1976 power because it was executed after the power had expired; the power required exercise 'before the Closing Date', which was 2 August 1989, so the last day for exercise was 1 August 1989. There is no equitable principle or authority permitting the court to alter the beneficial interests after the power expired, nor does the Hastings-Bass principle apply to substitute what the trustees would have done. The trust fund remains held on the default trusts of the 1976 appointment, in four equal shares for Jonathan and his three cousins (and their respective children).

Citation
[2000] EWHC Ch 224
Parties
Claimant: Roger Lester Breadner; Claimant: Stewart Henderson Fleming; Claimant: Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Limited; Defendant: Jonathan Granville-Grossman; Defendant: Deborah Lansing; Defendant: David Granville-Grossman; Defendant: Helen Iles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Trusts / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Exercise of Powers of Appointment, Construction of Trust Instruments, Breach of Trust, Defective Execution of Powers, Beneficial Entitlement
Trusts and Estates Equity Exercise of Powers of Appointment Construction of Trust Instruments Breach of Trust Defective Execution of Powers Beneficial Entitlement

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Lester Breadner

Claimant

Stewart Henderson Fleming

Claimant

Abacus Trust Company (Isle of Man) Limited

Claimant

Jonathan Granville-Grossman

Defendant

Deborah Lansing

Defendant

David Granville-Grossman

Defendant

Helen Iles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Trusts / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1989 deed was a valid exercise of the 1976 power of appointment under the settlement
  2. 2 Whether the trust fund is held solely for Jonathan Granville-Grossman (and his children) or in four equal shares for Jonathan and his three cousins (and their respective children)
  3. 3 Whether equity can intervene to give effect to the trustees' intentions despite a defective exercise of power

Ratio Decidendi

The 1989 deed was not a valid exercise of the 1976 power because it was executed after the power had expired; the power required exercise 'before the Closing Date', which was 2 August 1989, so the last day for exercise was 1 August 1989. There is no equitable principle or authority permitting the court to alter the beneficial interests after the power expired, nor does the Hastings-Bass principle apply to substitute what the trustees would have done. The trust fund remains held on the default trusts of the 1976 appointment, in four equal shares for Jonathan and his three cousins (and their respective children).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1989 deed was not a valid exercise of the 1976 power of appointment
  • Declaration that the trust fund is held on the default trusts of the 1976 appointment, in four equal shares for Jonathan and his three cousins (and their respective children)