Private Client client guides

Overview Content for select subtopic is not present

Latest Private Client News

Private Client weekly highlights—21 November 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) Wigglesworth v Beetson, in which the claimant failed in an action for estoppel and adverse possession; (2) the Hansard Society to host a briefing on parliamentary process for Assisted Dying Bill; (3) Khan v Khan, which considered family property and constructive trusts; (4) analysis of the Autumn Budget announcement to bring unused pension funds and death benefits within the scope of IHT; (5) Palmer v Sans, which found that there was no transaction at an undervalue where property was already held on trust for the transferee; (6) KA v FA (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening), where the court recognised an overseas adoption notwithstanding failure of common law test; and (7) Kireeva v Bedzhamov, in which the Supreme Court has confirmed the application of the immovables rule to English property.

Privy Council rules BVI company shares are not immovable property (Al Thani v Al Thani)

Private Client analysis: In a decision which will come as a relief to private individuals who own shares in BVI companies, the Privy Council has decided that section 245 of the BVI’s Business Companies Act 2004 does not have the effect of re-categorising shares as immovable property for the purposes of succession. Written by Kyle Bonnell, pupil at XXIV Old Buildings.

Supreme Court confirms application of immovables rule to English property

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed Ms Kireeva’s (Russian bankruptcy trustee’s) appeal to overturn the Court of Appeal’s’ decision regarding matters arising out of the bankruptcy of Mr Bedzhamov. Peter Declercq and Patrick Elliot, partners at DCQ Legal (who acted for Ms Kireeva), discuss the implications of the judgment.

UT finds FTT made errors when setting aside HMRC best judgment assessment (HMRC v Sintra Global)

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.

View Private Client by content type :

News

Practice notes

Precedents

Q&As

Popular documents

Scotland—the process for applying for sequestration

Scotland—the process for applying for sequestrationSequestration in Scotland is the legal process by which an insolvent debtor’s estate is gathered in, realised and then distributed among their creditors by a trustee appointed for that purpose. The process requires that a formal award of

Micklefield clauses

Micklefield clausesWhat is a Micklefield clause?It is common for employee share plans to provide that, on termination of employment (or when an employee is given or receives notice of termination of employment), subsisting share awards will be forfeited and subsisting share options will lapse.It is

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

Late payment penalties—inheritance tax

Late payment penalties—inheritance taxWhile interest often accrues on overdue tax, the late payment of certain taxes may also attract a penalty. For information on the interest accruing on overdue tax, see Practice Notes: IHT—payment deadlines on death—Interest on IHT and Interest on late paid