Jennifer Seaman

Trusts, probate and estates: contentious

Jennifer’s experience in this area includes: the construction and rectification of trusts and wills; probate disputes; inheritance act claims; breaches of trust and the nature and exercise of trustee powers; trusts concerning property and issues under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996; removal and appointment of executors. Her practice also includes Court of Protection matters such as deputyship applications, applications relating to Powers of Attorney, and directions regarding property and financial affairs.

She is ranked as a leading junior in Chambers & Partners’ Chancery: Traditional category and in Who’s Who Legal’s Private Client section.

Jennifer is a full member of STEP, ACTAPS and ConTrA.

She is regularly asked to write articles in leading publications, such as Trusts & Trustees and Trusts Quarterly Review. She often gives lectures on Private Client topics.

Notable cases:

• [Confidential] Instructed with Clare Stanley KC in relation to the Estate of a HNW family in the Middle East, acting for 1 of 6 children. Multiple jurisdictional issues.
• Re Summerhill Trust Company (Isle of Man) Ltd: This case involved Jennifer acting for a class of minor and unborn beneficiaries of a complex, family trust worth over £100,000m. Jennifer (acting as sole counsel) advised the representative of the class on the merits of a proposed settlement of a trust dispute covering various jurisdictions and she ultimately asked the IoM court to approve the settlement on behalf of the class, which involved the compromise of various off-shore claims against the trust. Robert Ham KC appeared for the trustees.
• [Confidential] Jennifer is instructed (as sole counsel) by her client, who is the trustee and beneficiary of a pension trust worth around £18.7 million. Jennifer is advising on a trust dispute the client is facing involving their sibling, who is also a trustee of the pension trust. The matter raises issues including trustee decision making, trust accounts, access to trust documentation and removing trustees.
• [Confidential] Jennifer is instructed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) (as sole counsel) to review the recovery of investors’ money that was placed into an Australian trust fund supposedly investing in Australian farm land which has now failed. The FSCS has compensated 457 investors in the region of £20 million. Jennifer is advising the FSCS on recovering £20m from the trust structures and intervening in the operation of the trusts. The matter involves issues such as the jurisdiction of the English courts, tracing trust funds, replacing trustees, calling for the trust to be brought to an end and orders for sale.
• The Northcote Will Trust: Jennifer acts (as sole counsel) for two representatives of two classes of beneficiaries in a case about the correct interpretation of a will trust. The issues raised by the wording of this trust have involved various chancery counsel since the 1980s. It is proposed that the matter is now to be put before the Chancery Division to get a ruling on the correct interpretation. Alternatively, the parties will ask the court to approve any compromise agreed between the parties. The matter is significant because it affects over 26 beneficiaries. The trust is worth around £1.3m in total.
• Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v others: Acting for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) in a number of matters involving trusts set up by the CICA for victims who have sustained criminal injuries.
• Re Butcher; Sharp v Hutchins [2015] EWHC 1240 (Ch): Acted for the successful claimant, Mr Sharp, in upholding a will challenged on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval.
• GE v KE [2014] EWHC 1938 (Fam); [2014] Fam. Law 1113: Acted on behalf of the administrators of the deceased’s estate and his widow in a dispute as to whether the widow was legally married to the deceased at the date of his death. Involved issues of Nigerian law.
• Futter v HMRC [2013] UKSC 26: Acted, with Robert Ham KC and Richard Wilson, for the appellant trustees in their appeal to the Supreme Court, which concerned the existence and limits of the principle known as the rule in Re Hastings-Bass.
• Hallett v Hallett (2012): Acted on behalf of the claimant widow, who was awarded 50% of the deceased’s net estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
• Re Hampel Discretionary Trust 1999 [2012] EWHC 2395 (Ch): Acted on behalf of the applicants to rectify an inter vivos trust deed, which did not represent the applicants’ intentions.
• Keith Maxwell Tamlin & Ors v. Holly Holbrook Samuel Edgar & Ors (Times, February 23, 2012): Acted for the third defendant, a beneficiary under two related family trusts. The case concerned the claimant trustees’ application for the court’s approval of advancements to wind-up the two trusts.

Download Trusts, probate and estates: contentious CV

Professional liability

Drawing on Jennifer’s expertise in pensions, trust and probate claims and commercial litigation, Jennifer’s practice includes professional negligence litigation in these related fields. In particular, professional negligence claims against solicitors, accountants, auditors, actuaries and financial practitioners.

Notable cases:

• [Confidential] A pension case raising various important trust concepts including the validity of deeds of amendment over around a period of 20 years. The total value of the claim could be c£50m. The case raises issues such as which equitable doctrines and principles can “save” a deed which is not witnessed in accordance with the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The case will have larger significance for other trustees seeking to administer trusts with defective documentation. Jennifer is instructed as sole counsel for a professional advisor, third-party.
• Ballinger & Anor v Mercer Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 372 (Ch) & [2014] EWCA Civ 996: Acted with Fenner Moeran KC on behalf of the defendant companies who provided actuarial services to a pension scheme in a claim brought by the trustees of the scheme. In the Court of Appeal, the defendants successfully argued that the claimants should not have permission to amend their claim when there was, prima facie, a limitation defence.

Download Professional liability CV