Gelber & Anor v Tthe Sunderland Foundation & Ors

Gelber & Anor v Tthe Sunderland Foundation & Ors

The court is satisfied that the trustees lack the necessary powers, the proposed transactions are for the management and administration of the trust, the transactions are of the type contemplated by section 57, and they are expedient. The changes do not amount to a resettlement or rewriting of the trust. All parties support the application, and there are no adverse tax consequences. The orders sought are granted.

Parties
Claimant: David Aba Gelber; Claimant: Maximilian Henry Gelber; Defendant: The Sunderland Foundation; Defendant: Justine Markovitz; Defendant: Caspar Spencer-Churchill; Defendant: George John Godolphin Spencer-Churchill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Disposal Hearing; Application for Court Orders Under Section 57 Trustee Act 1925
Outcome
Application granted; orders made as sought by the parties.
Legal Topics
Trustee Powers, Variation of Trusts, Appointment and Retirement of Trustees, Expediency Under Trustee Act, Disposition of Trust Property
Trusts Property Law Charity Law Trustee Powers Variation of Trusts Appointment and Retirement of Trustees Expediency Under Trustee Act Disposition of Trust Property

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Aba Gelber

Claimant

Maximilian Henry Gelber

Claimant

The Sunderland Foundation

Defendant

Justine Markovitz

Defendant

Caspar Spencer-Churchill

Defendant

George John Godolphin Spencer-Churchill

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Disposal Hearing; Application for Court Orders Under Section 57 Trustee Act 1925

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should confer new powers on trustees under section 57 Trustee Act 1925 to pay proceeds to a charity and to modify trustee appointment/retirement provisions
  2. 2 Whether the proposed transactions are expedient and within the court's jurisdiction under section 57
  3. 3 Whether the changes amount to a re-writing or resettlement of the trust

Ratio Decidendi

The court is satisfied that the trustees lack the necessary powers, the proposed transactions are for the management and administration of the trust, the transactions are of the type contemplated by section 57, and they are expedient. The changes do not amount to a resettlement or rewriting of the trust. All parties support the application, and there are no adverse tax consequences. The orders sought are granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; orders made as sought by the parties.

Orders

  • Trustees authorised under section 57 Trustee Act 1925 to enter into the Deed of Covenant to pay the heritage contribution to Blenheim Palace Heritage Foundation.
  • Trustee appointment and retirement powers modified to allow a single non-natural person (not necessarily a trust corporation) to act as sole trustee.