7 May 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the application raised no novel legal question, amounted to an attempt to re‑litigate concurrent findings of fact by the High Court and Court of Appeal that the deed was not a sham, and did not satisfy the s 13 criteria or show a miscarriage of justice.
24 Jun 2013
The Judge held that leave should be granted on specific issues because they raise bona fide questions of law and fact of sufficient importance (notably the Vaughan Road Trust, valuation issues and dispositions to education trusts), that concurrent factual findings supported adoption of EBITDA $6.7m and a 6.25 multiple such that appeal is arguable, and that some other trust issues were premature or do not meet the Waller v Hider threshold; leave on s182 must be granted by the Court of Appeal and s44C leave was refused but may be considered if s182 leave is granted.
18 Oct 2012
The court held that in these transferred Property (Relationships) Act proceedings the existing points of claim were sufficiently particularised to constitute the applicant's pleading against the trustees and respondent; requiring a separate statement of claim would produce undesirable duplication and any deficiencies in particulars can be addressed by applications for further particulars, so joinder was ordered on that basis.
17 Aug 2012
The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: s 60H(1)(f) must be read broadly in light of the protective statutory purpose so that assets held in discretionary trusts can, on a reasonably arguable factual basis, be treated as held "on behalf of" associated persons for preservation orders; the KA4 sham pleading was sufficiently particularised to proceed to discovery and a substantive hearing, whereas the KA3 sham claim was not pursued on appeal.