Two sub-funds of the Settlement were relevant to the hearing and they were held on materially the same terms as the Grandchildren’s Fund and the Appointed Fund. The trustees retained an overriding power of appointment. The successive interest was split between D4 and C2 for life, with remainder interests for C2’s children who attain 21 or are living under that age on the perpetuity date. This was currently held for the benefit of C1 for life with power for the Trustees to appoint capital to him. The remainder interest was for C2’s children who attain 21 or are living under that age on the perpetuity date and This was currently held for the benefit of C2 for life with power for the Trustees to appoint capital to him.
This was currently held on a discretionary trust for the benefit of C1, D6, their descendants and spouses, widowers and widows In the Will Trust three sub-funds were relevant to this hearing: The Trustees of both trusts were C1 and the twelfth and thirteenth defendants (D12 and D13).Ī succession of appointments had been made in both trusts so that each was divided into a number of sub-funds. The other beneficiaries of both trusts were all the descendants of H or their spouses. The eldest surviving son of H and the eldest grandson of H, C1 and C2 respectively, were beneficiaries of both trusts and applied for a variation of some of the sub-funds. The Settlement terms were similar to the terms of the Will Trust and contained the same administrative powers. The second trust (‘the Settlement’) had been set up by T’s brother, H, with property which had been appointed to him from T’s Will Trust. The first trust was created by a testator, referred to in the case as T, in his Will (‘the Will Trust’) upon his death many years ago and was for the benefit of his descendants. This case concerned a proposed variation of various sub-funds of two family discretionary trusts. Although the trustees considered the variation to be in the interests of ‘core’ beneficiaries, they did not want to prevent the remoter beneficiaries from potential benefit, such as in the event of a family catastrophe. However here, the court approved the variation while bypassing the need for the consent of the remote beneficiaries. Where a variation of a trust is sought which affects potential beneficiaries, it must be agreed to by all the adult beneficiaries and approved by the court on behalf of unborn and unascertained persons. Two of the beneficiaries of various sub-funds of family trusts sought to vary the terms of those sub-funds by extending their perpetuity periods by approximately 100 years. Do you really have to have the consent of remote beneficiaries to varying the trust terms? – A v B EWHC 340 For help or guidance please seek the services of a qualified practitioner. Disclaimer: LawSkills provides training for the legal industry and does not provide legal advice to members of the public.
0 kommentar(er)
