Hamilton v Hamilton and another

Trust and trustee – Will. The Chancery Division dismissed the a claim that the assets of a foundation, established by the claimant's deceased father in Leichenstein, formed part of his father's estate, such that they fell under his father's will and fell to be equally divided between the claimant and his sister. After the father's death, the claimant's sister had received a share of the assets in the foundation that was worth about twice as much as the claimant's. The court ruled that the foundation had full ownership of its assets, and Liechtenstein law did not recognise the distinction between legal and beneficial interests, which was fundamental to the English law of trusts. Further, it held that tax evasion had not been the sole, main or primary purpose of establishing Rainbow.

Category: