• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

Appointment of trustee set aside for undue influence

The High Court has today handed down judgment allowing an appeal before Mr Justice Meade by a claimant to set aside her appointment as trustee of a trust, on the ground of undue influence. The claimant was appealing the first instance decision of Deputy Master Henderson QC from May of this year. Charles Russell Speechlys acted for the claimant both at first instance and on the successful appeal, instructing Nicholas Le Poidevin QC and Thomas Chacko as counsel.

In 2003, the Claimant signed a deed of appointment and retirement appointing her as trustee of a trust. On her evidence, she did so acting under undue influence from her father, and without understanding the effect of the document she was signing. She was also unaware that her appointment as trustee formed part of a tax avoidance scheme (known as a “Round the World” scheme). The Claimant only became aware of her appointment as trustee in 2011, when she received notice that HMRC were claiming from the trustees a capital gains tax liability arising from the scheme in the amount of £1.6 million (the tax liability is the subject of ongoing proceedings in the First-Tier tax tribunal). The Claimant’s evidence was accepted by the Deputy Master at first instance.

In the first instance decision, the Deputy Master refused to set aside the claimant’s appointment as trustee. He held that the appointment of the claimant was a unilateral act by the retiring trustees, which could be accepted or disclaimed by the claimant. On that analysis, the claimant’s appointment was not capable of being set aside as the retiring trustees had not been subjected to undue influence. The Master also held that the claimant’s appointment could not be set aside on the ground of mistake, as the mistake was not a relevant mistake under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt, or on the grounds of lack of capacity and non est factum (the other alternative grounds advanced at first instance but not pursued on appeal).

Allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Meade accepted the submissions of Nicholas Le Poidevin QC, on behalf of the claimant, that the sources relied on by the Deputy Master were not authority that acceptance was not a necessary element of the appointment of a trustee. The Judge granted partial rescission of the deed of appointment and retirement by which the claimant had been appointed as trustee, on the ground that the claimant had signed the document under undue influence from her father. The Judge held that a partial rescission did not cause unfairness to any other party. As the relief sought under the ground of mistake was identical, the Judge did not decide the points which arose on this ground, which he commented were complex, potentially important, and better decided in a context where both sides were fully argued (the defendant, although aware of the proceedings, did not appear and was not represented at first instance or on appeal).

The decision represents an important clarification of the nature of trusteeship and the process by which a trustee is appointed. It is also a reminder that trustees and their advisers would be well advised to take practical steps to ensure that there is no risk that an individual accepting the duties and obligations of a trusteeship is doing so subjected to undue influence.

Our thinking

  • Protecting Premarital Wealth and the Family Home for Molly-Mae

    Miranda Fisher

    Quick Reads

  • What You Need to Know About International Family Law

    William Longrigg

    Events

  • Charles Russell Speechlys finds that 3 in 4 Gen Z adults plan on tying the knot as young people embrace traditional life milestones

    Sarah Jane Boon

    News

  • What is the cost of cohabitation? For Dale Vince, it was over £11m.

    Matt Foster

    Quick Reads

  • The Financial Times and The Telegraph quote Catrin Harrison on the growing use of life assurance as a strategy to mitigate against inheritance tax liabilities

    Catrin Harrison

    In the Press

  • Naomi Nettleton and Alicia Stanford-Shard write for Property Week on how landed estate owners are increasingly looking to make improvements to their estates to enhance environmental impact and efficiency

    Naomi Nettleton

    In the Press

  • An introduction to the new Procurement Act 2023

    Jamie Cartwright

    Quick Reads

  • Mind the Gap Trade Mark

    Charlotte Duly

    Insights

  • A Closer Look at the Meaning of ‘Investor’ in Investment Treaty Arbitration

    Stephen Chan

    Insights

  • Shareholder Strategies: A practical guide to unfair prejudice petitions

    Emilie Brammer

    Insights

  • New food and drink ads regulation & impact on live sports broadcasts

    Sarah Johnson

    Insights

  • AML in decentralized finance and traditional finance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • The Financial Times quotes Sangna Chauhan on the impact of the abolition of UK non-dom status on her workload

    Sangna Chauhan

    In the Press

  • International Arbitration: 2024 in Review

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Has the UAE recognised the principle of Without Prejudice Privilege?

    Maher Al Nashar

    Quick Reads

  • Appointment of company directors – who can do it and how?

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • VAT Zero-rating: Dwellings or RRP – which is best for student accommodation?

    Elizabeth Hughes

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys finds that over half of Gen Z say the Bank of Mum and Dad comes with strings attached

    Sally Ashford

    News

  • The Financial Times reports on our independent survey of Gen Z adults and quotes Sally Ashford on the influence of the Bank of Mum and Dad and potential strings attached

    Sally Ashford

    In the Press

  • Understanding Contempt of Court in Swiss Law: Key Provisions and Penalties

    Remo Wagner

    Insights

Back to top