header-logo header-logo

Just do it

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

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 the
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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll