Briefing Notes

Spousal by-pass trusts

Spousal by-pass trusts

Spousal by-pass trusts are established to allow the lump sum death benefit of a pension to be paid by the scheme trustees to someone other than the deceased’s spouse or civil partner, while still giving them access to those funds. They offer certain inheritance tax benefits and are becoming increasingly popular. However changes in legislation relating to perpetuity periods (laws relating to how long it is permissible to tie up assets in a trust) have created a pitfall which in certain circumstances can invalidate the trust potentially resulting in an additional inheritance tax burden for spouses. Care needs to be taken to avoid this pitfall and Richard Monkcom, head of Druces LLP’s Private Client team explains how.

Private Client Briefing Note – Spousal Bypass Trusts

Posted in Briefing Notes, Private Client Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Doing business in England and Wales

Doing business in England and Wales

An overview of the most important legal considerations for a foreign person or organisation wanting to do business in England and Wales (the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland may differ).

It describes aspects of the basic law relating to companies, partnerships, LLPs, distribution and agency relationships, financing business, taxation, intellectual property rights, e-commerce, freedom of information and data protection, the acquisition of property in the UK, planning, investment business,  competition law, licensing, and employment law. It  should not be relied upon as providing legal advice. Our firm has substantial experience in advising overseas organisations on UK matters and we can offer assistance in detail on any of the topics raised. Please call Toby Stroh, Druces LLP’s head of Corporate & Commercial law for more information.

Doing business in the UK

Posted in Briefing Notes, Corporate & Commercial Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

SDLT on Residential Property Transactions

SDLT on Residential Property Transactions

New rates of SDLT

In the Budget on 21 March 2012 the Chancellor announced a new 7 per cent rate of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) for residential property transactions where the chargeable consideration exceeds £2 million. The new rate applies to transactions where the effective date is on or after 22 March 2012, subject to transitional provisions for pre-existing contracts.

Additionally, the Chancellor announced a new higher 15 per cent rate of SDLT for residential property transactions by certain persons (broadly companies, collective investment schemes and partnerships with a member who is a company or a collective investment scheme) where the chargeable consideration exceeds £2 million. The new rate applies to transactions where the effective date is on or after 21 March 2012, subject to transitional provisions for pre-existing contracts.

Exclusions

There are also two exclusions from the higher charge, firstly for companies acting in the capacity of trustee of a settlement and for bona fide property developers who meet the qualifying conditions.

SDLT Annual Charge and CGT Charge Consultations

In addition the Government will be launching two consultations (expected to be published in May 2012). The first will involve the introduction of an annual charge on residential properties over £2 million owned by certain non-natural persons at rates expected to be between 0.3% and 0.7% depending on the property value.

If we assume that a property valued at £2 million will attract a charge of 0.3% then this means the annual charge would be £6,000.

The second consultation will relate to the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax charge on the sale of residential property owned by non resident, non-natural persons. Legislation in respect of each of these consultations will be introduced in Finance Bill 2013 and will come into effect in April 2013. Until the consultation papers are published we will not know the extent of the proposed charges or the scope of their application.

What to do next

Owners of high-value residential property held otherwise than by individuals should consider conducting a review of their portfolios once the consultation papers have been issued, to determine whether any restructuring would be desirable before April 2013 or the mechanisms by which the annual charge could be most efficiently paid.

Nothing in this note constitutes legal advice and it is intended as general guidance only.

If you would like to discuss this topic or any other matters of interest please e-mail us at taxation@druces.com or telephone us on +44 207 7638 9271 and ask to speak to Richard Monkcom or Susan Perry.

Druces LLP Solicitors April 2012

Posted in Briefing Notes, Tax Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Administration Sales and TUPE: Normal Service Resumed

Administration Sales and TUPE: Normal Service Resumed

For many years, the accepted way to rescue a company and preserve employment and at the same time maximising return to creditors has been administration followed by the sale of the business and assets to a purchaser (usually by a ‘pre-pack’).

The automatic transfer of the employees to the purchaser under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations invariably applied to a business sale out of administration. That remained the case until 2006 when a new regime (TUPE Regulations 2006) came into effect on 6 April of that year. This introduced an element of uncertainty for purchasers, administrators and employees. Fortunately that uncertainty has now been resolved following a clear Court of Appeal Decision in Key2Law (Surrey) LLP -v- De’Antiquis [2011].

Richard Baines, Head of Druces LLP’s Business Turnaround, Restructuring and Insolvency team and Scott Thistleton, a trainee solicitor at Druces LLP consider in detail the issues surrounding the uncertainty and its resolution by the decision in Key2Law in their latest article published in the In-House Lawyer, April 2012 issue

Turnaround, Restructuring & Insolvency briefing note: Administration Sales and TUPE (April 2012)

Posted in Briefing Notes, Turnaround, Restructuring & Insolvency Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off

Wharton v Bancroft, death-bed Wills and Legal Costs

Wharton v Bancroft, death-bed Wills and Legal Costs

Summary: The recent court case of Wharton v Bancroft [2011] EWHC 3250 (Ch) emphasises the need to be wary when challenging a Will. Although contentious probate claims will often be emotionally charged, this case illustrates that it is important for both clients and solicitors to put aside personal issues which might impact on their decision-making and to approach such cases dispassionately and proportionately. A failure to approach such cases appropriately can, as happened in this case, lead to significant cost liabilities for unsuccessful parties.

The case also serves as a reminder to practitioners who are involved in making a death-bed Will as to the requirements for ensuring the testator has the requisite mental capacity to make a Will, one of the so called “Golden Rules”.

Please speak to Richard Monkcom, Head of Druces LLP’s Private Client team for more information. A pdf of our full briefing note on the subject can be downloaded via the link below.

Relevant to: Individuals who are seeking to challenge the terms of a Will and Legal Practitioners

Private Client Briefing Note Wharton v Bancroft, death-bed Wills and Legal Costs (Mar 2012)

Posted in Briefing Notes, Dispute Resolution Briefing Notes, Private Client Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Repudiatory breach of contract: (1) The Trademark Licensing (2) Lonsdale Sports v Leofelis & ors

Repudiatory breach of contract: (1) The Trademark Licensing (2) Lonsdale Sports v Leofelis & ors

Summary: Two contracting parties each purported to terminate a contract on the grounds of the other’s repudiatory breach. In this trade mark licence dispute, the licensee purported to terminate a trade mark licence agreement on the grounds of a repudiatory breach by the licensor and treated the agreement as at an end. The licensor did not accept the repudiation, but terminated the agreement on the grounds of the licensee’s own breach. The ground relied upon by the licensee to terminate transpired not to be a breach, but it sought nonetheless to rely on another alleged breach not known to it at the time, to justify termination.

The court ruled that the later alleged breach can be relied upon by the licensee as a defence to the licensor’s claim for damages, but not to found a claim for damages against the licensor, because the unknown alleged breach was not the cause of the termination.

Please speak to Marie-Louise King, Partner in Druces LLP’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution team, and who acted for the First, Fourth and Fifth Third Parties in the proceedings, for further information

Relevant to: Parties involved in commercial contracts, legal practitioners

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Briefing Note: Repudiatory Breach of Contract, The Trademark Licensing Co and another v Leofelis SA and others (Mar 2012)

Posted in Briefing Notes, Dispute Resolution Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

How the Courts interpret oral contracts: BVM Management v Roger Yeomans [2011]

How the Courts interpret oral contracts: BVM Management v Roger Yeomans [2011]

Summary: Oral contracts are binding between parties in the same way as written contracts, except in relation to certain types of transactions such as the sale of land. However because oral contracts are not translated into a single written document, difficulties often arise in identifying what are the exact terms of the agreement. For that reason, lawyers will always advise that contracts should be put into writing. Where they are not, the Courts are often left to resolve disputes between the parties.

The case of BVM Management Limited -v- Roger Yeomans was one such case. The parties had discussed terms for the provision of services by BVM verbally and BVM had indicated a requirement for a minimum of 2 year period for the contract. Various draft documents had passed between the parties, and these drafts contained a clause entitling Yeomans to terminate the contract on 3 months’ notice. Subsequently BVM began providing its services without concluding an agreed written contract, on the basis of the negotiations that had taken place. Yeomans later sought to terminate the contract relying on the 3 month termination provision. BVM refused to accept that the termination provision formed part of the contract.

The Court of Appeal’s decision was that the break provision had been incorporated, by reason of its inclusion in the drafts passing between the parties and BVM’s failure to object to it during the discussions on the drafts. The case highlights the dangers implicit in oral contracts and emphasises the need for parties to be clear in their objection to objectionable contract terms during negotiations, in order to avoid the incorporation of such terms subsequently.

Speak to Toby Stroh, Head of Druces’ Corporate & Commercial team or Julian Johnstone, Head of Druces’ Litigation & Dispute Resolution team for more information 

Relevant to: Parties negotiating commercial contracts, businesses

Corporate & Commercial Briefing Note: Pitfalls of Oral Contracts, BVM Management v Yeomans [2011]

Posted in Briefing Notes, Corporate & Commercial Briefing Notes, Dispute Resolution Briefing Notes, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Druces LLP’s Private Client Newsletter Winter 2012

Druces LLP’s Private Client Newsletter Winter 2012

Welcome to Druces LLP’s Private Client Newsletter for Winter 2012.

You will find in this update recent case law and legislative changes relevant to the private individual and charities. Contact details for our Private Client Partners can be found on our website at Private Client Partners, if you would like further information on these issues. Please also take time to review our new website and, in particular, our Private Client service pages, for more information about our Private Client and related services.

Charitable Legacies – An Added Incentive

In an important development, a charitable legacy equivalent to 10% of your estate could soon reduce the amount at which inheritance tax is charged on your death by 4%. Gifts to charities already benefit from being exempt from inheritance tax which reduces the overall value of the estate chargeable to the tax on death. Under current proposals, there will be an added incentive; a charitable gift of 10% or more will lower the rate of inheritance tax to 36% on your estate, further reducing the actual cost of the gift to other beneficiaries. The draft legislation which will introduce this reduction was open for technical comment until 10 February 2012. It is anticipated that the changes will apply to all deaths from the new tax year onwards. For further information on the proposals, including a worked example of how the benefit will be applied, see our briefing note Charitable Legacies or speak to Richard Monkcom, head of Druces LLP’s Private Client team.

Do You Have An iWill?

Digital technology continues to develop a pace. However has your Will kept up with such changes? Until recently, it was common for photos, music and films to all exist in a physical format. Today such items are increasingly owned in an electronic form only and with moves towards Cloud storage technology, such files may not even be easily visible on a computer at home. In addition to questions about who inherits these items, there are also issues surrounding what happens to your online social networking profile or your email accounts when you die. Does someone know your passwords to access such material and is there anything which you would not like loved ones to stumble across? While certain providers have policies in place for deaths of account holders, these may not accord with your wishes. Increasingly, people are choosing to leave details of online accounts and passwords with their Will or trusted individuals together with instructions as to what they would like to happen to their Digital Estate when they die. A copy of Druces’ full Briefing Note on this subject can be found at iWill.

A Warning For Charities And Testators Following Ilott v Mitson [2011]

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“1975 Act”) was enacted to give dependants a chance of receiving “reasonable financial provision” from a deceased’s estate even if they were not named in the deceased’s Will. However disputes often arise out of cases brought under the 1975 Act, particularly where the person making a claim is an adult child who lives independently and is not in financial need. In the case of Ilott v Mitson [2011] EWCA Civ 346, the Court ruled that the adult daughter of the deceased was to receive a share of her estate, despite a clear letter of wishes left with the Will explaining why her daughter had been excluded. For further details of this case, and the implications it has for anyone who is making a Will excluding an adult child or leaving a legacy to charity, see our briefing note Ilott v Mitson.

Severing A Joint Tenancy Correctly: Quigley v Masterson [2011]

The case of Quigley v Masterson [2011] EWHC 2529 (Ch) serves as a reminder of the importance of severing the joint tenancy of a property correctly. While all houses in joint ownership must be owned legally by joint tenants, the beneficial title may either be held by the owners as joint tenants or tenants in common. Under the latter, each co-owner has a notional share in the property which they are free to dispose of as they wish. This enables the co-owner’s share of their property to pass under their Will when they die. When the beneficial interest is held on a joint tenancy, the property passes on the death of one of the joint owners to the survivor/s. Severing a joint tenancy to create a tenancy in common has therefore signifciant implications with regard to how the property passes on death. The case of Quigley v Masterson illustrates the importance of getting this procedure right. For details of the case, and information on how Druces could help you with severing a joint tenancy, please see our briefing note Quigley v Masterson.

Charity Commission Not Appealing Public Benefit Ruling

It has been reported that the Charity Commission has decided not to appeal against the decision in the case of the Independent Schools Council v Charity Commission for England and Wales and others [2011] UKUT 421 (TCC). The case, which was heard by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), concerned guidance issued by the Charity Commission following the introduction of a public benefit test under the Charities Act 2006. The guidance, which suggested that many Independent Schools would not meet the test’s requirements, was challenged by the Independent Schools Council through Judicial Review. While overall the ruling did not provide the clarity hoped for in the area of public benefit, it offers an interesting insight into the charitable position of Independent Schools. For further information on this case, including some examples of when an Independent School would qualify as a charity, please see our briefing note Charity Commission and Independent Schools.

Proposed Statutory Test For Residence Postponed

In June last year, HM Treasury produced a consultation paper proposing new statutory tests for individuals. This was a response to the UK’s current residency rules which have been widely criticised. The Government wanted to produce a transparent, objective and simple test with the aim of providing certainty for individuals and businesses. However HM Treasury announced in December that the statutory residence test will take effect from April 2013, a year later than planned. It appears that the 12 week consultation raised a number of detailed issues which require careful consideration to ensure the legislation achieves its aim. The Government’s response to the consultation is expected to be made around the time of this year’s Budget. The reforms to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals announced in Budget 2011 will however be included in this year’s Finance Bill. These changes include the introduction of a higher £50,000 annual remittance charge, a new relief to encourage business investment and technical simplifications to some of the existing non-domicile rules. For a Briefing Note explaining the basic rules relating to domicile and residence and their impact on UK taxation, please see our briefing note Domicile and Residence.

Legacies: Too High A Price For Charities?

Many people choose to leave a cash legacy or even the entirety of their estate to a charity. Occasionally such legacies are challenged by disgruntled beneficiaries or individuals who have been excluded from the Will altogether. This challenge may involve argument as to the validity of the Will, or that the testator has failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. This presents a problem for the charity; on the one hand, they have a duty of care to make sure that they receive the monies which are due to it. On the other, the costs of pursuing the legacy may be inhibitive. It is important to balance the merits of the claim against the prospects of success. However a Charity should not be afraid to assert their rights if a legacy has been legitimately left to them. For further information, please click Charities and Contested Legacies.

Administering an Estate

Administering an estate means ascertaining the assets and liabilities of a deceased person, confirming the authority of the executor or administrator, settling the tax position, and distributing the assets in accordance with the Will. Our briefing note Administering an Estate provides guidance as to these requirements.

Lasting Powers of Attorney

Lasting Powers of Attorney  (LPAs) are an effective way of dealing with a person’s affairs should they suffer a major illness or become mentally ill or lose their capacity to deal with their own affairs. Our briefing note Lasting Powers of Attorney provides further details.

Posted in Briefing Notes, Private Client Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Administrations: Landlord and Tenant update

Administrations: Landlord and Tenant update

Summary: Richard Baines, Head of Druces’ Business Turnaround, Restructuring and Insolvency team, looks at the recent Court decisions relating to the impact of administrations on landlords and tenants, in an article first published in the InHouse Lawyer magazine in February 2012

Relevant to: Administrators, landlords and tenants

Turnaround, Restructuring & Insolvency briefing note: Administrations, landlord and tenant update (Feb 2012)

Posted in Briefing Notes, Dispute Resolution Briefing Notes, Turnaround, Restructuring & Insolvency Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Service of legal proceedings via facebook: AKO Capital

Service of legal proceedings via facebook: AKO Capital

Summary: A High Court Judge has ruled in the case of AKO Capital LLP and Anor -v- TFS Derivatives and Others that civil legal proceedings may be served on a Defendant via his Facebook account, where the Claimant had been unable to locate him for the purpose of serving the legal proceedings in a more traditional manner. Marie-Louise King, a Partner in Druces’ Litigation & Dispute Resolution team considers the decision

Relevant to: Litigants and legal practitioners

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Briefing note: Service by Facebook, AKO Capital (Feb 2012)

Posted in Briefing Notes, Dispute Resolution Briefing Notes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off