Termination of trusts

Termination of trusts—methods of termination

An express trust, after it has become operative, may come to an end in a number of ways, for example:

•
the settlor may exercise a power of revocation or a power of appointment reserved to them in the trust instrument
•
it may be set aside under the provisions relating to the avoidance of transactions at an undervalue or to dispositions in fraud of creditors, on the ground that the disposition was induced by fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake
•
in the case of matrimonial proceedings or proceedings on the dissolution of a registered civil partnership, the court has power to:
1. ◦
  adjust interests in settlements
2. ◦
  set aside a disposition intended to defeat a claim for financial relief in such proceedings
3. ◦
  set aside a settlement made in compliance with a property adjustment order in matrimonial proceedings where this would amount to a transaction at an undervalue in an insolvency
•
the passage of time
•
due to rules of construction: the rule in Andrews v Partington [1775-1802] All ER Rep 209; the rule in Lassence v Tierney [1843-60]

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with UU��ֱ�� or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Will set aside for lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence (Oliver v Oliver)

Private Client analysis: William Oliver died on 25 May 2018, at the age of 86 years. He was a widower, with five surviving children. The claimant, Jane, was his youngest daughter. She sought to set aside his last Will made in 2015 on the grounds that—a) it did not comply with the formalities to make a Will (see section 9 of the Wills Act 1837); and b) William lacked testamentary capacity when he made that Will; or c) the Will was procured by undue influence. The defendant, Rodney, was William's eldest surviving son and sole beneficiary of the 2015 will. He did not engage with the court process and refused to produce the original of William's penultimate Will, made in 2009. The claim was successful on the ground that William lacked testamentary capacity in 2015. The court also found that the Will was invalid on the ground of undue influence. Written by Alexandra Rogers, managing associate at Foot Anstey LLP.

Video analysis—Autumn Budget 2024: Impact on Private Clients

Private Client analysis: In this UU��ֱ��® Practical Guidance video, Malli Kini, Kelly Greig & Alex Foster, Private Client Partners at Blick Rothenberg LLP give their views on the key announcements made in the Autumn Budget 2024 for Private Clients.

Private Client weekly highlights—31 October 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Autumn Budget 2024 and key tax announcements of interest to private client practitioners; (2) Knight (as property and affairs deputy for BJB) v Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a Court of Protection case on reverse indemnity undertakings in a damages settlement; (3) G Goldsmith Ltd v HMRC, a cautionary tale about the need to obtain timely tax advice when undertaking property transactions; (4) new HMRC guidance for taxpayers on rental income; and (5) a review of the first year of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

When is a private care provider exercising a public function for the purposes of section 6 Human Rights Act 1998? (Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd)

Local Government analysis: A healthcare provider which failed to properly authorise deprivation of liberty for a patient in its care was therefore not exercising a ‘special statutory power’ and so was not exercising a public function for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). This was so despite the fact that the provider ‘appeared to believe that it had’ special statutory powers’, and that ‘a knowledgeable observer would know that the only lawful way to do what was being done was through the exercise of such a power’. In cases which fall outside the carefully circumscribed scope of section 73 of the Care Act 2014 (CA 2014), the principle in YL v Birmingham City continues to represent the present state of the law. Written by Siân McGibbon, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

UU��ֱ��