Millar & Anor v Millar & Ors

Millar & Anor v Millar & Ors

Clause 13 of the trust deed is inconsistent with clauses 4.2 and 5, and must be disregarded so that the settlors' reserved interests and powers of appointment are effective; the trust deed is construed to give effect to the settlors' intention.

Parties
Claimant: Christina Mary Millar; Claimant: Sarah Bridget Pearson; Defendant: Robert John Millar; Defendant: Andrew Jon Millar; Defendant: Benjamin Jay Millar; Defendant: Samuel James Millar; Defendant: Her Majesty’s Attorney General
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted
Legal Topics
Construction of Trust Deed, Rectification, Conflicting Clauses, Beneficiary Interests
Trusts Property Equity Construction of Trust Deed Rectification Conflicting Clauses 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christina Mary Millar

Claimant

Sarah Bridget Pearson

Claimant

Robert John Millar

Defendant

Andrew Jon Millar

Defendant

Benjamin Jay Millar

Defendant

Samuel James Millar

Defendant

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 13 of the trust deed is effective or should be disregarded
  2. 2 Whether the trust deed should be rectified to delete clause 13

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 13 of the trust deed is inconsistent with clauses 4.2 and 5, and must be disregarded so that the settlors' reserved interests and powers of appointment are effective; the trust deed is construed to give effect to the settlors' intention.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted

Orders

  • Clause 13 of the trust deed is of no effect
  • Clauses 4.2 and 5 have full effect in favour of the claimants