View source for Pitt v Holt (2010) EWHC 45 (Ch)

''The principle in Hastings-Bass, originally applied only to trustees, applies equally to receivers under the MHA 1983. Therefore Mrs Pitt, who as a receiver had put her husband's money into a settlement without considering the inheritance tax position, could have the settlement set aside as an ineffective transaction. (The principle in Hastings-Bass has been summarised as: "Where trustees act under a discretion given to them by the terms of the trust, in circumstances in which they are free to decide whether or not to exercise that discretion, but the effect of the exercise is different from that which they intended, the court will interfere with their action if it is clear that they would not have acted as they did had they not failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account, or taken into account considerations which they ought not to have taken into account.")'' [Caution.]

==Related judgments==
[[Pitt v Holt (2013) UKSC 26, (2013) MHLO 46]]
*[[Pitt v Holt (2011) EWCA Civ 197]]
**[[Pitt v Holt (2010) EWHC 45 (Ch)]]

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|Pitt v Holt (2010) EWHC 45 (Ch)}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2010] EWHC 45 (Ch)}}

[http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2010/CHAN/Pitt_v_Holt.html Law report on ICLR website]

[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article7036510.ece Times: Setting aside settlement, 24/2/10]


[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]