UK's Court's Equitable Jurisdiction in Inheritance Tax Matters Essay

UK's Court's Equitable Jurisdiction in Inheritance Tax Matters - Essay Example Since the medieval period, the equity principles in UK have emerged poignantly through the process of chains of various forms of the writ, conceived by the Lords Chancellor. UK courts have applied equitable jurisdiction through the forms of rescission, injunctions, specific performance and through rectification or reversion. An equitable remedy can be explained as a relief or remedy by recognising a loss suffered by an infringement of duty and demanding the fiduciary to make an order for compensation for the loss suffered as held in Target Holdings v Redferns. The court can order to pay monetary damages which are known as â€Å"equitable compensation.† The fundamental principle of the equitable jurisdiction is the concept that it functions or acts in personam. The meaning of in personam can be explained how the Court of Equity is more worried to stop any given individual from functioning unconscionably. Thus, a Court of Equity is therefore giving a verdict, footed on the verac ity of the facts unreasonably or not knowingly. If the defendant does not stop or carryout the court orders, then such person would be held as committed a contempt of court. In East v Pantiles Plant Hire Ltd , the court was asked to consider the background on which reversion or overhaul can be ordered as regards to a deed. In this case, Brightman J observed it is obvious on the officials that an error in a written deed, could, in some scenarios, be ordered to be corrected as an issue of drafting without applying for an order from a court for an order of rectification. To be eligible under this rule, it is necessary to fulfil the following two stipulations namely there should be an apparent and obvious error on the face of the deed, and it must be obvious what rectification has to be made so as to rectify the error. As a matter of construction, if the above two conditions are fulfilled, then such rectification is made. (Marshall2007: 90). Mistake of Fact In â€Å"Ogden, v Trustees of the RHS Griffiths 2003 Settlement†3, the trustees were delegated with revisionary interests in certain shares by the deceased grantor. When executing the deed, the gra ntor was of the opinion that his health was good and hence, he had a reasonable opportunity for living for at least seven years. As under Inheritance Tax Act 1984, if a gift is made, the grantor should live at least for seven years from the date of granting the gift. It is to be noted that after the expiry of seven years, there will be no inheritance tax on the assets so gifted to family members. However, Griffith was actually diagnosed with lung cancer and died after one year after the execution of the gift. Executors contended that a mistake was committed by the deceased in assessing his state of health and prayed for equity intervention. Agreeing with the executors, Lewison J set aside the transfer or gift under the mistake of fact. (Hacker 2008:117). Griffith’s case has permitted tax payers in UK as part of their tax planning to have just and to annul gifts they have made under the mistake of facts. As per s 3A of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, if a grantor lives for seven years immediately after executing a gift to somebody, there