Sieff v Fox, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, June 23, 2005, [2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch),[2005] 3 All ER 693
Linked as:
Extract
Sieff v Fox, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, June 23, 2005, [2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch),[2005] 3 All ER 693
Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWHC 1312 (Ch)
Case No: 4MA70282IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECHANCERY DIVISIONMANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRYRoyal Courts of JusticeStrand, London, WC2A 2LLDate: 23 June 2005Before:LORD JUSTICE LLOYD(sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Between:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Simon Taube Q.C. (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the ClaimantsFrancis Barlow (instructed by Herbert Smith) for the Second DefendantMark Herbert Q.C. (instructed by RadcliffesLeBrasseur) for the Fourth DefendantThe First and Third Defendants were not represented Hearing dates: 21 to 23 March 2005 (in Manchester) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -JudgmentLord Justice Lloyd: 1. This case concerns an appointment made in 2001 under the trusts of a settlement dated 23 August 1971 and made by the late Marquess of Tavistock, who afterwards became the Fourteenth Duke of Bedford. By the combined effect of the appointment and an assignment made a few days later by the Marquess' son, Lord Howland, on the face of them, the property which was the subject of the appointment is now held on the trusts of a later settlement, dated 26 March 1987, made by the present Duke, the Fifteenth, then Lord Howland, who is the Second Defendant in these proceedings. The property affected by the appointment, if it was valid, is a valuable collection of chattels at Woburn Abbey and a reversionary lease of the Woburn Estate. The question is whether the appointment was valid and effective or not. If it was not, then nothing passed by the assignment. It is not suggested that the appointment could be valid and the assignment invalid.2. The present trustees of the 1971 settlement are the Claimants. At the time of the 2001 appointment, the Third Defendant was also a trustee. The present trustees of the 1987 settlement are the Claimants and the First Defendant. The Fourth Defendant is a beneficiary of the 1987 settlement and cannot benefit under the 1971 settlement. She is joined to represent the interests of those who would benefit if the 2001 appointment and the assignment are valid and effective.The facts3. The trusts arising under the 1971 settlement are complex, as is their history. Not all of this needs to be considered for the purposes of this claim. I will first set out what needs to be said about the family. The Thirteenth Duke held the title from 1953 until his death on 25 October 2002. The Duke's heir is known by courtesy as the Marquess of Tavistock, and the Marquess' heir as Lord Howland. On the death of the Thirteenth Duke in 2002, his son succeeded to the title, but he died on 13 June 2003. In turn his son inherited, and holds, the title as the Fifteenth Duke. At the time of all relevant dealings, the present Duke was Lord Howland and his father was the Marquess of Tavistock. They are respectively so referred to in the trust documents of the time. For that reason, I will refer to them by those titles in this judgment. The Fourth Defendant is a daughter of a daughter of Lord Hugh Russell, a younger brother of the Thirteenth Duke. She was born on 4 May 1991 and is therefore not of full age.4. The 1971 settlement, made by the Marquess of Tavistock, created separate trusts of several different funds, among them the Peerage Fund and the Chattels Fund. The Peerage Fund is governed by clauses 11 to 13, of which clause 11 confers on the trustees a general discretionary power of appointment, but the class for whose benefit the power may be exercised is exclusively male. Similar, but not identical, provisions govern the Chattels Fund, under clause 19. The Peerage Fund included the Woburn Estate (including Woburn Abbey), the London Estate and some chattels. The Chattels Fund included the rest of the settled chattels. Some but not all of the relevant chattels were subject to conditional exemption from estate duty or exempted from capital gains tax. The non-exempt chattels are of great value. The power under clause 11 is exercisable only with the written consent of the Marquess of Tavistock and Lord Howland during their lives.5. Between 1971 and 1987 the trustees of the 1971 settlement exercised their powers of appointment on a number of occasions. In 1982 they executed a long lease of the Woburn estate in favour of a nominee of theirs, and then made an appointment of the benefit of the lease on accumulation and maintenance trusts for the male issue of the Marquess of Tavistock.6. Lord Howland was due to attain the age of 25 on 30 March 1987. Under the trusts then in effect, he would have attained an interest in possession on that date. If he had died thereafter, while entitled to an interest in possession, there would have been a very large charge to inheritance tax. In order to prevent this risk arising, a series of transactions were undertaken. i) Lord Howland first created the 1987 settlement, on 26 March ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
