header-logo header-logo

19 April 2012 / Jenny Duggan
Issue: 7510 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail

Just do it

A trust should express, not obstruct, a court’s will, says Jenny Duggan

As is often the case where an application for financial relief has been made under Sch 1 of the Children Act 1989, G v A (Financial Remedy: Enforcement) (No 1) [2011] EWHC 2380 (Fam); (No 2) [2011] EWHC 968 (Fam); (No 3) [2011] EWHC 2377 (Fam); (No 4) [2011] EWHC 2377 (Fam) concerns a settlement that was established for the benefit of a child during his minority. The case is, however, particularly noteworthy because it was held that directions could be made that may override a trust deed. 


Trust terms

The mother and father in this case began their relationship in 1996 and their child, N, was born in 2001. The parties separated in 2002. On 10 May 2005, upon hearing the mother’s Sch 1 application, the district judge ordered £20,000 to be paid absolutely to the mother and the father to settle £220,000 for the purchase of a property to be held until N reached the age of 21 or
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll