Rennell v IRC [1964] AC 173 was a decision on the marriage
exemption for Estate Duty. The House of Lords held that a gift had
to satisfy three conditions to be accepted as "made in
consideration of marriage".
The conditions are that
You should construe the expression "on the occasion of the
marriage" according to ordinary customary usage. However, gifts or
settlements made
after marriage or civil partnership do not qualify
for the exemption unless made in the fulfilment of a binding
promise
before marriage or civil partnership. You may
assume that there is a binding promise for this purpose whenever
the transferor has definitely told the donee that they were going
to make the gift if the marriage or civil partnership takes place.
Where before the marriage or civil partnership the donor has
taken steps towards making the gift, for example, by instructing
their solicitors or brokers, but the gift is not completed until
after the marriage or civil partnership, it does not qualify for
exemption unless they have told the donee of it before the marriage
or civil partnership. Refer any case in which it is difficult to
identify the gift with the promise to your manager.
If the marriage or civil partnership has taken place and the
first condition is met, you may assume, unless there is evidence to
the contrary, that the second condition is also satisfied. An
example of such evidence could arise in the case of a gift by way
of settlement . The instrument could either confer an immediate
unconditional beneficial interest in advance of the marriage or
civil partnership or dispose of the settled property in some
alternative way (otherwise than by way of reversion or resulting
trust to the donor) if the marriage or civil partnership fails to
take place.
The last condition does not apply where the gift is to one of
the spouses or civil partners and to nobody else: Re Park (No. 2)
[1972] 2 WLR 276; [1972] 1 AER 394.
