Grey v Commissioners of Inland Revenue
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Viscount Simonds,Lord Radcliffe,Lord Cohen,Lord Keith of Avonholm |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1959 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1959] UKHL J1102-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1959] UKHL J1102-1
Viscount Simonds
Lord Reid
Lord Radcliffe
Lord Cohen
Lord Keith of Avonholm
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Grey and another against Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Thursday the 23d, as on Monday the 27th, days of July last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Arthur William Grey, of Milford House, Milford Lane, Strand, in the County of London, and Leslie Richard Randolph, of 19 Fleet Street, in the City of London, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 15th of May 1958, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled. That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 15th day of May 1958, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
My Lords,
This appeal raises a question upon which there has been a difference of opinion in the Courts below. It is whether certain instruments which were presented for adjudication to stamp duty under section 13 of the Stamp Act, 1891, are or are not chargeable with ad valorem duty. The Court of Appeal (Morris and Ormerod, L.J.J., Lord Evershed, M. R. dissenting) held that they are so chargeable. Upjohn, J. had decided to the contrary.
The facts as stated in the Case Stated by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be summarised as follows:—
(A) The Appellants are trustees of six settlements each of which was made between a Mr. Hunter as settlor of the one part and the Appellants as trustees of the other part. Four of these settlements were respectively dated the 22nd July, 1949, and a fifth was dated the 9th August, 1949, and each settlement directed the Appellants to stand possessed of the property comprised therein upon the trusts thereby declared for the benefit of a named grandchild of Mr. Hunter and such other trusts as therein appearing. All the said five settlements are in similar form. The sixth settlement was dated the 1st May, 1950, and the Appellants were thereby directed to stand possessed of the property comprised therein upon the trusts thereby declared for the benefit of the then existing and future grandchildren therein specified of Mr. Hunter.
(B) By an instrument of transfer dated the 1st February, 1955, Mr. Hunter transferred to the Appellants 18,000 ordinary shares of £1 each in Sun Engraving Company Limited (hereinafter called "the Company") to be held by the Appellants as nominees for and to the order of Mr. Hunter.
(C) At a meeting held on the 18th February, 1955, at the offices of the Company at which there were present Mr. Hunter and the Appellants and Mr. Graham Wyatt Williams, solicitor, Mr. Hunter orally and irrevocably directed the Appellants to divide the said 18,000 shares in the Company into six equal parcels of 3,000 shares each and to hold one of such parcels upon the trusts and with and subject to the powers and provisions respectively declared and contained in each of the said six settlements to the intent that such directions should result in the entire exclusion of Mr. Hunter from all further right, title and benefit to or in the said shares or any of them and the income thereof.
(D) By six deeds of declaration of trust each dated the 25th March, 1955, and executed by the Appellants and Mr. Hunter after reciting in each such deed that the Appellants were the holders of 3,000 ordinary shares in the Company and that on the 18th February, 1955, Mr. Hunter orally and irrevocably directed the Appellants to hold the said shares upon the trusts and subject to the powers and provisions in such one of the said settlements as was therein mentioned and that the Appellants had thereupon assented to and accepted the trusts reposed in them by the said direction and that the giving of the said direction on the said 18th February, 1955, and in manner aforesaid and the nature thereof were testified by the execution by Mr. Hunter of that deed it was witnessed and the Appellants thereby acknowledged and declared (in each of the said deeds) that they had been since 18th February, 1955, and were then holding 3,000 shares therein mentioned and the income thereof upon such trusts and with and subject to such powers and provisions as were in the relevant settlement declared and contained concerning the Trust Fund as therein defined to the intent that the said shares should since the said 18th February, 1955, form an addition to and be one fund with the said Trust Fund for all purposes.
These facts give rise to the plain question whether the oral directions given by Mr. Hunter, which are recited in each of the instruments, were effective or were, having regard to section 53 (1) ( c) of the Law of Property Act, 1925, wholly ineffective. In the former event the instruments would not, and in the latter would, be chargeable with ad valorem duty.
Section 53(1) ( c) of the Act is as follows:—
"Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol— …. ( c) a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition, must be in writing signed by the person disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will."
Briefly, then, were the several oral directions given by Mr. Hunter dispositions by him of the equitable interest in the shares held by the Appellants as nominees for him?
If the word "disposition" is given its natural meaning, it cannot, I think, be denied that a direction given by Mr. Hunter whereby the beneficial interest in the shares theretofore vested in him became vested in another or others is a disposition. But it is contended by the Appellants that the word "disposition" is to be given a narrower meaning and (so far as relates to inter vivos transactions) be read as if it were synonymous with "grants and assignments" and that, given this meaning, it does not cover such a direction as was given in this case. As I am clearly of the opinion, which I understand to be shared by your Lordships, that there is no justification for giving the word "disposition" a narrower meaning than it ordinarily bears, it will be unnecessary to discuss the interesting problem that would otherwise arise. It was for this reason that your Lordships did not think it necessary to hear learned counsel for the Appellants in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong, Wen-Young v (1) Grand View Private Trust Company Ltd, (2) Transglobe Private Trust Company Ltd
...is essential, whether the property is realty or personalty’. 768.3 Waters Law of Trusts in Canada (2012) at p. 264 (citing Grey v IRC [1959] 3 WLR 759): ‘Section 9 also covers both realty and personalty, and this is a departure from the other sections of the Statute already discussed’. 768.......
-
JSC VTB Bank (a company incorporated in Russia) v Pavel Valerjevich Skurikhin
...213 Mr Penny's submission is that it follows from section 53(1)(c), as interpreted and applied by the House of Lords in Grey v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1960] AC 1, that Mr Skurikhin's oral direction to the New Brunswick companies to hold the membership interests in Pikeville on trust ......
-
Re Vandervell's Trusts (No. 2)
...signed by him or his agent, lawfully authorised by him in writing (and therewas no such writing produced). He cited Grey v. I. R. C. (1960) A. C. 1 and Oughtred v. I. R. C. (1960) A. C. 206. 34 There is a complete fallacy in that argument. A resulting trust for the settlor is born and dies ......
-
Farrell v Alexander
...cited. 77Of course, the presumption can be rebutted, it must yield "to plain words to the contrary"; Grey v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1960) A. C. 1, per Viscount Simonds at page 13. Faced with this issue, the Court in Zimmerman v. Grossman felt itself unable to find that the change of ......