Hopes & Anor (Trustees of the Skandia Life Policy Trust) v Burton & Ors [2022] EWHC 2770 (Ch) (09 November 2022)

Hopes & Anor (Trustees of the Skandia Life Policy Trust) v Burton & Ors [2022] EWHC 2770 (Ch) (09 November 2022)

The trustees made a grave operative mistake in the 2013 and 2014 Appointments, unintentionally altering beneficiary interests and incurring adverse tax consequences, making it unconscionable not to set aside both Appointments; the mistake was sufficiently serious to justify rescission.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2770 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Richard David Ernest Hopes; Claimant: George Trevor Carney; Defendant: Kate Burton; Defendant: Paul Adam Burton; Defendant: Lindsey Munroe Whillians-Samson; Defendant: Amanda Jane Whillians; Defendant: Sydney Josephine Burton; Defendant: Lewis Joseph Beaven; Defendant: Sam Burton; Defendant: Millicent Jane Whillians Samson; Defendant: Lottie Matilda Whillians Samson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Appointments set aside
Legal Topics
Rescission of Trust Appointments, Mistake in Voluntary Disposition, Inheritance Tax Consequences, Trustee Powers, Beneficiary Interests
Trusts Probate Tax Rescission of Trust Appointments Mistake in Voluntary Disposition Inheritance Tax Consequences Trustee Powers Beneficiary Interests

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard David Ernest Hopes

Claimant

George Trevor Carney

Claimant

Kate Burton

Defendant

Paul Adam Burton

Defendant

Lindsey Munroe Whillians-Samson

Defendant

Amanda Jane Whillians

Defendant

Sydney Josephine Burton

Defendant

Lewis Joseph Beaven

Defendant

Sam Burton

Defendant

Millicent Jane Whillians Samson

Defendant

Lottie Matilda Whillians Samson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trustees made an operative mistake as to the substance or effect of the 2013 and 2014 Appointments
  2. 2 Whether the Appointments are invalid or ineffective as exceeding trustee powers
  3. 3 Whether the Appointments are invalid due to uncertainty

Ratio Decidendi

The trustees made a grave operative mistake in the 2013 and 2014 Appointments, unintentionally altering beneficiary interests and incurring adverse tax consequences, making it unconscionable not to set aside both Appointments; the mistake was sufficiently serious to justify rescission.

Court Disposition

Appointments set aside

Orders

  • 2013 Appointment set aside
  • 2014 Appointment set aside