Stuart Benzie was instructed (with Michelle Ullger) to appear in the Court of Appeal of Gibraltar for the successful respondents in Haut v. Holm [2025] GCA/006. The appeal concerned the ownership of shares in a Gibraltar company that held shares in three Spanish companies that in turn owned a portfolio of properties in Spain. The parties had been married but separated and eventually divorced; shortly after the divorce Ms Haut died and following Mr Holm’s subsequent death, the shares were left to his two children.
The shares were held in a Gibraltar trust as joint tenants for the benefit of Ms Haut and Mr Holm. The evidence was that the parties had intended such a structure but also intended that the surviving partner would pass the assets to the couples four children in equal shares.
The judge at first instance held that the parties were bound by the joint tenancy and that there had been a further express declaration of trust in 2005 that stated that the shares were held as joint tenants. He rejected claims that there had been any subsequent agreement to vary that trust.
In the appeal, the Appellants (represented by Keith Azopardi KC and Emma Dudley), relying principally on Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 A.C. 432 and Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 AC 776, argued that the first instances judge had failed to properly consider whether, the parties had converted the joint tenancy to a tenancy in common as a consequence of either, a common intention constructive trust; or a presumed resulting trust. They further argued that alternatively, the joint tenancy had been severed as a consequence of the break down in the relationship between the parties and the eventual divorce.
Stuart argued that the first instance judge had dealt with all the arguments before him and had correctly concluded that there was no severance or constructive trust. As stated by the Court of Appeal, Stuart sought to demonstrate that the Appellants were taking “too broad a brush to the jurisprudence” and Sir Maurice Kay P. agreed with that submission. Stuart relied on an English family case to demonstrate that the existence of a divorce (even a divorce that includes a request for severance of a joint tenancy) was insufficient to effect severance (Harris and Another v Goddard and Others [1983] 1 WLR 1203).
Again, the Court of Appeal agreed with this submission finding that Harris v Goddard is “clear authority for the proposition that a prayer in a divorce petition for a transfer of property or similar order does not operate as a severance of a beneficial joint tenancy. A fortiori a divorce petition or appearance without such a prayer”.
Stuart has extensive experience of the application of the law of trusts and other Equitable principles in commercial disputes. He has appeared in numerous cases, in England and other jurisdictions in cases involving constructive trusts, resulting trusts and proprietary estoppel.
Stuart was instructed by Michelle Ullger and Tony Christodoulides of Ullger Law in Gibraltar.
Read the full judgment here.
