27
Sir,
No. 16.
Letter from Appellants Solicitor to The Registrar
of the Supreme Court Hongkong.
Hongkong, 6th February, 1936.
re SIR C. P. CHATER, DECEASED.
ESTATE DUTY APPEAL.
MISC. PROc. No. 31 OF 1935.
Since the hearing of this Appeal the Trustees of the Chater estate have found another case which they contend supports their argument and to which 10 they desire to draw the attention of the Court.
They have approached the legal advisers for the Estate Duty Commissioner, namely, the Crown Solicitor and Mr. Eldon Potter, K.C., who have agreed that this letter, which has been approved by them in draft, shall be placed before the members of the Full Court, subject of course to their Lordships' approval.
The case in question is re Booth, (1916) 1 Ch. 349, 114 Law Times Reports, 498 and the contentions of the Trustees thereon are as follows:-
It appears that in that case the Testator by his Will and a Codicil thereto gave his estate to his Executors upon trust to pay an annuity of £150. It was admitted throughout the proceedings in that case by all parties, both the Plaintiff 20 and the Defendant and by the Judge that the notional or actual fund which would produce this annuity was liable to payment of settlement estate duty; this of course would be correct only if the disposition effected by the testator amounted to a settlement. The Trustees maintain that it makes no difference whether the trust for the residuary fund is imposed by the actual words of the Will or by implication of law as they have argued in the present case.
On the other hand the legal advisers of the Estate Duty Commissioner contend as follows:-
This case is clearly one of a Settlement.
The effect of the testator's Will and Codicil (which must be read as one) 30 was that the whole of the residuary estate was given to the executors upon trust for Elizabeth Booth for life, with a gift over after the death of E.B. to four persons and that there was grafted onto this disposition, which effected a settle- ment of the whole of the residuary estate, the requirements (a) by the codicil, that an annuity of £150 should be paid to Charlotte Pleace for life (commencing from the testator's death) and (b) by the will, that an annuity of £150 should be paid to Charlotte Pleace for life, if she should survive Elizabeth Booth.
In neither case could the annuity be dissociated from the settlement of the entire residuary estate, nor could either of the "notional or actual funds" which would produce the annuity be at any time regarded as taken out of the settlement
No. 16. Letter from the
Appellants Solicitor to the Registrar of the Supreme Court Hongkong. 6th Febru-
ary 1936.
67