Cayman Islands

You must sign in before downloading any documents from the international trust cases

Cases :

AN v. BARCLAYS[9 ITELR 630]
- A “no contest” clause in a settlement or will is really a “no unjustifiable contest” provision. Many practitioners have met the overbearing head of the family not accustomed to having his decisions questioned by his children and has been instructed to embody in his family settlement provisions to like effect. The moral to be drawn from this decision is that he may have limited success, though a Cayman Exempted Trust may meet the case.AN v. BARCLAYSDownload
BRIGGS v. INTEGRITAS TRUST[1988-9] CILR 456
- The Court has a discretion to rectify a settlement which is clearly shown not to represent the settlor’s intentions, but will not exercise it if there is a convenient alternative remedy.BRIGGS v. INTEGRITAS TRUSTDownload
FONU v. MERRILL LYNCHCauses 555 of 2005; 80 of 2007
- Powers of appointment and revocation not “property”FONU v. MERRILL LYNCHDownload
HSBC International Trust Ltd v Tan Poh LeeCI. Grand. Ct
- Court authorized trustee to defend action in another jurisdiction.HSBC International Trust Ltd v Tan Poh LeeDownload
LEMOS v. COUTTS & CO[1992-3] CILR 5/460
- The Cayman Islands has its anti-forced heirship legislation, in the shape of the Trust (Foreign Element) Law of 1987. The trustees in this case had the protection of that law, and also had the power to remove a beneficiary from the discretionary class; they may well have thought themselves impregnable. But what this case shows is that an aggrieved heir can make a surprising amount of trouble. The activities reported here were only skirmishes, and unhappily for the clarification of the law, the main issue was never litigated. But it is believed that the forced heirship claimants got 8% of the trust assets by way of settlement, which may be a great deal less than they would have got if the 1987 Law had not been enacted. The Grand Court judgement is followed by the judgement of Zacca P., with which the two other Court of Appeal judges concurred.LEMOS v. COUTTS & CODownload
OJJEH TRUST[1992-3] CILR 348
- This is the Court in mother-hen mode, and the reader’s sympathetic juices flow warmly towards the harassed trustee (not a feeling always arising from these pages). The court is seen here exercising its supervisory function in the interest of the proper administration of a trust, but never for a moment stepping beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction.OJJEH TRUSTDownload
RE LEMOS TRUST SETTLEMENT[1992-93] CILR 26
- Another episode in the Lemos affair. Here the trustees sought – and got – the protection of the Court in taking steps to defend the Greek actions (see Lemos v. Coutts & Co, supra).RE LEMOS TRUST SETTLEMENTDownload
RE O. TRUSTFSD 199 OF 2013 (IKJ)
- Whether or not the settlor had capacity to give instructions to trustees. Proof on balance of probabilities.RE O. TRUSTDownload
RHB TRUST v. BUTLIN[1992-3] CILR 219
- “Child” in a Caymanian settlement does not include an illegitimate child.RHB TRUST v. BUTLINDownload
S. TRUST[1992-3] CILR 268
- A case on the construction of a trustee remuneration clause. The judge rather loftily refers to the drafting as “quaint”, observing (no doubt by way of explanation) that the terms were agreed between two accountants. But what he has to say about construction of a trust instrument generally is very helpful: it is to be construed like a contract, though it isn’t one, and the contra proferentem rule applies.S. TRUSTDownload
THE GOLDEN TRUST2012(2) CILR 355
- Rectification may be granted to repair an omission. A potential tax advantage is not a bar.THE GOLDEN TRUSTDownload
WAHR-HANSEN v. BRIDGE TRUST1 OFLR 787/ 3 ITELR 72
- Applying English principles to a “benevolent” trust, the Court found that it failed to be charitable and therefore failed altogether.WAHR-HANSEN v. BRIDGE TRUSTDownload