The first was Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners,[1] where the House of Lords was concerned with whether an oral instruction to transfer an equitable interest in shares complied with the writing requirement under Law of Property Act 1925 section 53(1)(c), and so whether receipt of dividends was subject to tax.

The second was In re Vandervell's Trusts,[2] which involved the Special Commissioner of the Inland Revenue's ability to amend tax assessments.

Tony Vandervell, a wealthy racing car manufacturer, was attempting to make a donation to the Royal College of Surgeons to establish a chair in his name.

[3] Vandervell therefore had the shares repurchased by a trust company set up to manage his children's inheritance, through an option that had been granted during the setup of the original tax-avoidance scheme.

So Vandervell signed a document explicitly transferring any remaining rights in the shares to the trust company.

Furthermore, on the same basis, Vandervell's own executors made a claim to recover the dividends themselves from the trust company.

His intention was that his products company should declare dividends in favour of the Royal College of Surgeons which would amount in all to £150,000 or more.

So, about the time of the transfer, on December 11, 1958, he got the Royal College of Surgeons to grant an option to his trustee company.

By this option the Royal College of Surgeons agreed to transfer the 100,000 "A" shares to the trustee company for the sum of £5,000 at any time on request within the next five years.

But at a meeting with the chairman of the trustee company it was proposed - and Mr. Vandervell approved - that the option should be held either on trust for his children (as an addition to the children's settlement) or alternatively on trust for the employees of his products company (see the particulars declared by the executors).

Afterwards, during the years from 1958 to 1961, he saw to it that his products company declared dividends on these 100,000 shares which were paid to the Royal College of Surgeons.

Faced with this demand, in October 1961, the trustee company, on the advice of counsel, and with the full approval of Mr. Vandervell, decided to exercise the option.

They made this clear to the revenue authorities in an important letter written by their solicitors on November 2, 1961, which I will read: " G. A. Vandervell, Esq.

- Surtax "Further to our letter of September 7 last, we write to inform you that in accordance with the advice tendered by counsel to Vandervell Trustees Ltd., the latter have exercised the option granted to them by the Royal College of Surgeons of December 1, 1958, and procured a transfer to them of the shares referred to in the option, with funds held by them upon the trusts of the settlement created by Mr. G. A. Vandervell and dated December 30, 1949, and consequently such shares will henceforth be held by them upon the trusts of the settlement."

Mr. Vandervell believed that thenceforward the trustee company held the 100,000 "A" shares on trust for the children.

He got his products company to declare dividends on them for the years 1962 to 1964 amounting to the large sum of £1,256,458 gross (before tax) and £769,580 10s.

They claimed that, even after the exercise of the option, Mr. Vandervell had not divested himself of his interest in the 100,000 "A" shares and that he was liable for surtax on the dividends paid to the children's settlement.

The third period: 1965-1967 On January 19, 1965, Mr. Vandervell executed a deed by which he transferred to the trustee company all right, title or interest which he had on the option or the shares or in the dividends - expressly declaring that the trust company were to hold them on the trusts of the children's settlement.

- 1958 - 1961: The revenue authorities claimed that Mr. Vandervell was the beneficial owner of the option and was liable for surtax on the dividends declared from 1958 to 1961.

This court did join them (see In re Vandervell's Trusts [1970] Ch 44); but the House of Lords reversed the decision (see [1971] AC 912 ).

Lord Wilberforce said "that the option was held by the trustee company on trusts" "not at the time determined, but to be decided on at a later date" (see pp.

(ii) The trustee company wrote to the revenue authorities the letter of November 2, 1961, declaring expressly that the shares "will henceforth be held by them upon the trusts of the [children's] settlement."

Such being the intention, clear and manifest, at the time when the shares were conveyed to the trustee company, it is sufficient to create a trust.

Mr. Balcombe for the executors admitted that the intention of Mr. Vandervell and the trustee company was that the shares should be held on trust for the children's settlement.

Both Mr Vandervell and the trustee company had done everything which needed to be done to make the settlement of these shares binding on them.

The deed of that date operated so as to transfer all his interest thenceforward to the trustee company to be held by them on trust for the children.

Thenceforward the trustee company invested the money and treated it as part of the children's settlement.

The lords justices held that the executors were entitled to the bank shares, because "there is no equity in this court to perfect an imperfect gift": see p. 274.

His conduct was such that it would be quite inequitable for him to be allowed to enforce his strict rights (under a resulting trust) having regard to the dealings which had taken place between the parties: see Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1877) 2 App Cas 439, 448.

But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale - to defeat the intentions of a dead man - to deprive his children of the benefits he provided for them - and to expose his estate to the payment of tax of over £600,000.