The Gazette 1961 - 64

to the accountant and solicitor respectively for their charges or costs as professional trustees. The beneficiaries entitled in remainder after the death of the widow took an action against the trustees and they alleged in their statement of claim that these sums exceeded what was reasonable remunera tion and also they sought an inquiry as to what was the excess and asked that any excess so found might be replaced. The defendants applied to the plaintiffs for particulars specifying what would be the reasonable remuneration for their work and it was held by the court on this point that the beneficiaries had an absolute right (at their own risk as to costs) to have the amount of the charges investigated and that the claim for particulars was misconceived, because the defendants were thereby endeavouring to convert what in substance was an action for an account into an action for a specific sum. Cross J. in his judgment said that the defendants claimed that they wished to have the issue defined, that is to say, they wanted to have the claim for a general inquiry or account converted into a claim for a specified sum which is said to have been the excessive charge. This would have great advantages from the point of view of the defendants because they would then know the maximum which could possibly be recovered from them. The plaintiffs, being obliged to tie themselves down to a specified sum in advance, could not claim more than that, even if the tribunal thought the excess was larger. Where there was a question of an account to which the plaintiff was entitled and the defendant was an accounting party there could be no question of the plaintiff having to deliver particulars at this stage of an action. This was essentially an action for an account and could not be converted into an action for a specified sum. He held, therefore, that the defendants were not entitled to the particulars for which they asked. The matter had come before the court on a procedure summons (Re Wells deceased, Wells & ors. v Wells & ors. 1962 I. All England Law Reports, page 812.) NOTE This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal (Denning M. R. Harman and Russell L. J. J.) on the 8th May, 1962. Lord Denning giving judgment said that where reasonable charges were in question —whether of a builder, an architect, or an accountant charging for his services—the ordinary way was to give particularised accounts and for the other side to take objections set out in a schedule. This was how the matter should be dealt with. This was in substance an action for an account: the averment that too much had been charged was merely intro ductory and the particulars which the beneficiaries had given in their pleadings were as full as could

be expected from them at this stage and were all that the trustees were entitled to. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. (Solicitors Journal May i8th, 1962 vol. 106 no. 20 page 410). IMPORTANT ESTATE DUTY DECISION Investments of Channel Island's resident not taxable in Ireland A recent judgment by the Supreme Court, delivered on 2ist December, 1961, will have an important bearing on the question whether, in certain circumstances, investments held abroad are liable to estate duty in this country. The decision related to investments held subject only to an outstanding jointure by trustees for a man who died in the Channel Islands, where no estate duty is payable. In a reserved judgment, the Supreme Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Lavery, Mr. Justice Kingsmill-Moore, and Mr. Justice Haugh, affirmed a High Court decision allowing a petition of Barclays Bank Executor and Trustee Co. (Channel Islands), Ltd., which asked for a declaration that no estate duty was payable by the late Henry Howe Cuffe Knox, Jersey, Channel Islands, on funds set out in the petition. The case went to the Supreme Court on an appeal by the Revenue Commissioners against Mr. Justice Teevan's decision. The appeal was dismissed with costs. Mr. Justice Kingsmill-Moore delivered the judgment to which the other judges subscribed. Mr. Justice Teevan in his judgment had stated that Mr. Knox died on February i6th, 1954, domiciled in Jersey. At the time of his death investments (and two comparatively small sums in cash) to the value of £68,788, stood in the names of two trustees to pay to Violet Lleena Cassandra Knox an annuity of £1,500 for her life, and there after for Mr. Knox absolutely. The Revenue Commissioners contended that the testator had no proprietary interest in the property making up the trust fund, but only a personal right against the trustees to call on them to execute the trusts, enforceable by action if necessary, i.e., a chose in action. As the dispositions constituting the trust fund were made by Irish settlements and by the will of a Testator domiciled in Ireland, the Revenue said that the " proper law " is Irish, and they valued the testator's right as equivalent to the full value of stocks and bonds which would be liable to estate duty. Equitable interests and estates, they contended, invoke only rights in personam, and not rights in rem. The view that equitable interests convey no right ii