Gavin Littaur v Alistair Collett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Linwood |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 2225 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2022-000493 |
[2023] EWHC 2225 (Ch)
DEPUTY Master Linwood
Case No: PT-2022-000493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY TRUSTS & PROBATE LIST (Ch D)
IN THE MATTER OF THE LITTAUR MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT 1948
The Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
MR LITTAUR appeared in person
Mr P Burton (instructed by BDB Pitmans) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants
Ms G Galley (instructed by Oriel Law) appeared on behalf of the Intervenor/Third Defendant
THE DEPUTY MASTER:
This is my extempore judgment on this disposal hearing in Littaur v Collett and Neale, claim number PT2022-000493. Where I refer to the defendants, that is the first and second defendants, not including Dr Fox, who was joined in the course of the hearing, unless the context appears otherwise.
By a Part 8 claim form issued on 13 June 2022, the claimant, Mr Gavin Littaur, who represented himself before me today, claimed for:
(1) “…an Account of the rents, profits, dividends, interest and income received or administered by the defendants or by either of them or by any other persons or person by the order of or for the use of the defendants or either of them of the property for the time being subject to the trust of the settlement made on 12 January 1948 between David Littaur and Joyce Fox, and Marcus Littaur and Cecil Louis Fox and of the dealings of the defendants, or either of them, therewith; (“the Account”)
(2) …an inquiry as to what property, properties and assets subject to the trusts of the settlement made between David Littaur and Joyce Fox and Marcus Littaur and Cecil Louis Fox made on 12 January 1948 was received or possessed or administered by, or vested in the defendants, or either of them, and whether any property so received or possessed was administered or vested was paid or transferred to or into the name of any other person, and if so to whom, at what time or times and under what circumstances, and what changes of investment of the property, properties and assets were made, and when and under what circumstances, and what has become of the property” (“the Inquiry”).
I will call the 1948 settlement by which the assets are held and passed as the “Marriage Settlement”. The Part 8 claim form and the particulars of claim are accompanied by a witness statement by Mr Littaur. He says at paragraph 2 that he is a co-beneficiary:
“… together with my sister, Glen Fox, of the marriage settlement. My beneficial interest came about upon the death of my father, David, on 16 March 2022, aged 96. My interest arises pursuant to paragraph 7 of the settlement, which for the sake of brevity, I reproduce below:
“After the death of the husband and the wife, the trustees shall stand possessed of the husband's fund and wife's fund in trust for all and any children or child of the said marriage, who being male, shall have obtained the age of 21 years, or being female shall have obtained that age or married under that age, and if more than one, in equal shares.””
It is not in dispute that the current position is that Mr Littaur and his sister, Dr Glen Fox, are now equally entitled to the assets and properties comprising the Marriage Settlement.
Mr Littaur continues: “The first defendant was, and still is, a trustee of the settlement as well as being solicitor for my late father, referred to as the husband in the settlement.” Then he says:
“Prior to her appointment, my late father was co-trustee together with the first defendant. However he took little or no active role and left all to be dealt with by the first defendant.”
Mr Littaur then states: “I have very little knowledge about the contents in the settlement, save for the limited information provided to me by the first defendant on various occasions.” Next at paragraph 5:
“It is not disputed that no accounts were ever made in respect of this settlement, which I understand contained various properties and shares, nearly all of which produced an income as well as a considerable amount of cash.”
Then at paragraph 7, he refers to the duties of trustees, including:
“a duty of care, avoiding conflicts of interest, taking control of the trust assets and preparing accounts. No such accounts have been produced, notwithstanding that the settlement had considerable assets. I believe the value of the assets in the settlement were in excess of £6 million.”
Paragraph 8:
“I also have some concern with the regard to the property situated at 84 Wildwood Road, Hamstead Gardens Suburb, London, NW11, where my parents lived, which was recently sold at what appears to be at a considerable undervalue to my niece, a connected party.”
His niece is Ms “achel Montague, daughter of Dr Fox. Mr Littaur continues: “This property was an asset within the settlement. Once again, the failure to provide an account is astonishing.” Then Mr Littaur refers to copy correspondence, and he states the explanation provided in relation to this property, “is in my view absurd.”
Paragraph 10:
“In the circumstances, I ask the honourable court for an order that the defendants provide an account for the period of the last 15 years, which in light of the dismissive explanation provided by the first defendant in correspondence should not be an endless task.”
Mr Littaur subsequently in the course of his submissions said that, in the circumstances, he would accept an account from the first defendant, Mr Collett, who is a solicitor and partner in BDB, from the time he was appointed as a trustee (until then he was solicitor to the trustees) in 2017 to date.
Mr Collett in his witness statement explains he is a solicitor and partner in the firm of BDB Pitmans Limited. He specialises in private client work and has acted as a professional trustee on numerous occasions throughout his career. He refers to the background of the settlement, and at paragraph 5 sets out the assets. The assets settled were simply: leasehold property at Hornsey by Joyce; £23,000 by David; a life policy, sum insured £2,000 by David; furniture and effects, wife's chattels by Joyce.
Referring to Mr Littaur's and Dr Fox's parents, David and Joyce, Mr Collett says they: “… approved advances of capital to the claimant and his sister as follows …” Then there are various advances, six altogether, over the period 1998 to 2011, totalling £550,000 to them both, so they received £275,000 each.
Paragraph 10:
“I am of course aware of the duties of trustees to account to the beneficiaries for assets of the trust, and I believe I have complied with this duty since becoming a trustee on 6 September 2017 and that prior to my appointment the claimant was provided with regular and adequate accounts of the capital assets of the settlement to the correspondence sent in by my firm on behalf of the incumbent trustees.”
Then paragraph 11:
“My understanding is that in order to satisfy my trustee duty to account, I am required to identify to the beneficiaries, (a) the original assets of the settlement; (b) how the assets have been dealt with; (c) what the assets are at the date of the beneficiaries' request; and (d) what distributions have taken place?”
Paragraph 12:
“Prior to David Littaur's death on 16 March 2022, all income from the settlement was mandated to the life tenants David and Joyce, and formal trust accounts were not required to be produced to the claimant, who had no interest in the income. If capital assets of the settlement had been transferred to David and Joyce as income beneficiaries, this would have given rise to an obligation to account to the claimant for income, but this did not happen, and the claimant and his sister have been the recipients of transfers of capital from the settlement.”
I interject there to say I accept Mr Collett's point that formal trust accounts were not required to be produced to the claimant who had no interest in the “income” – and I emphasise the income – of the Marriage Settlement.
At [13], Mr Collett continues:
“It is not correctly suggested by the claimant that he has ‘very little knowledge about the contents of the settlement’ or that the information relating to the Marriage Settlement has been limited. I attach at pages 8 to 90 some of the correspondence with the claimant, or his solicitors, in the period February 2006–08. From this correspondence, it can be seen the claimant has been provided with an account of the assets of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial