Jersey

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

Cases :

A v NAUTILUS TRUSTEES[2015] JRS 250
- The rule in Hastings-Bass still alive and well in Jersey. A v NAUTILUS TRUSTEESDownload
A v. B MANAGEMENT[2011] JRC 070
- The settlor’s widow was not a trustee, but the Court needed to give effect to the settlor’s wishes and permitted the widow to be joined as a party A v. B MANAGEMENTDownload
ABACUS v. ESTEEM SETTLEMENT[2003] JRC 092
- This is a very long judgment, with a detailed – and compelling – account of the facts and arguments. It offers authority for a number of propositions, of which the three most interesting are:- (a) A trust instrument is not a “sham” unless both parties intend it to be (paragraphs 41 – 60) (b) The doctrine of “piercing the veil”, applicable to companies, has no application to a trust (paragraphs 74 – 124) (c) A valid trust does not become invalid because the settlor has taken control of the trust assets and misapplied them (paragraphs 125 – 135) ABACUS v. ESTEEM SETTLEMENTDownload
BHANDER v. BARCLAYS1 OFLR 497
- That the trustees had to disclose accounts and related information to a beneficiary comes as no surprise; that they had to pay all the costs, because of their “inordinate delay” comes as a salutary warning. BHANDER v. BARCLAYSDownload
BOYD v ROSEL TRUSTEES[2014] JRC 56
- Jersey law: when a trust should be set aside for mistake. The English case of Pitt v Hold (q.v.) considered. BOYD v ROSEL TRUSTEESDownload
DEN HAAG TRUST, RE THE[2010] JRC 199
- A beneficiary had evidently had some difficulty in getting sight of trust documents. The Court confirmed the trustee’s duty to disclose them to her and made the trustee pay the costs on an indemnity basis.DEN HAAG TRUST, RE THEDownload
EMM CAPRICORN TRUSTEES LTD v. COMPASS TRUSTEE4 ITELR 34
- How effective is an exclusive clause in a settlement? The Jersey court considers the question. EMM CAPRICORN TRUSTEES LTD v. COMPASS TRUSTEEDownload
FM v. ASL TRUSTEE CO1 OFLR 495
- An English Court had purported to vary a Jersey trust. This is the Jersey Court’s reaction. FM v. ASL TRUSTEE CODownload
FREEMAN v. ANSBACHER TRUSTEES[2001] JRC 020A
- The claimant (Rosanna) was the beneficiary of a discretionary trust, who sued the trustee for negligently allowing a company (SDR) whose shares were held by the trust to suffer losses. The trustee applied to strike out her claim. FREEMAN v. ANSBACHER TRUSTEESDownload
GREEN GLG TRUST[2009] JRC 003
- The Hastings-Bass rule is applied in Jersey. GREEN GLG TRUSTDownload
IN RE RABAIOTTI 1989 SETTLEMENT1 OFLR 91
- A beneficiary was involved in divorce proceedings in England, and the High Court had made an order that he should disclose “accounting documents” of the settlements and letters of wishes relating to them. Should the trustees disclose these documents to him? IN RE RABAIOTTI 1989 SETTLEMENTDownload
JASMINE TRUSTEES v L AND ORS – Re Piedmont and Riviera Trusts[2018] JRC 210
- Revocation of trust successfully challenged by beneficiary on ground of undue influenceJASMINE TRUSTEES v L AND ORS – Re Piedmont and Riviera TrustsDownload
JASMINE TRUSTEES: Re Piedmont and Riviera Trusts[2015] JRC196
- This is about breach of fiduciary duty; it is an example of a removed trustee successfully claiming that the purported removal was invalid and aggrieved daughter successfully claiming that the appointment of hostile brothers as protectors equally invalid.JASMINE TRUSTEES: Re Piedmont and Riviera TrustsDownload
Kea Investments v Watson[2021] JRC 009
- Court refuses arrêt over discretionary interest in trust.Kea Investments v WatsonDownload
LLOYD’S BANK v. CALA CRISTAL[1994] JLR/[1996] CA Jersey
- A trustee applying for directions would normally be entitled to costs out of the trust fund. But the Court has a discretion to refuse, and here did so. The case is no advertisement for the applicant. LLOYD’S BANK v. CALA CRISTALDownload
MIDLAND BANK TRUST v. FPS[2008] JRC 136
- The former trustee, FPS, failed to hand over trust money to the investment managers because (or so Mr Akid, its chief executive said) it believed that new regulatory provisions required a “Customer Agreement” to be in place first. When the trustee discovered that its belief was erroneous, it paid over the money. But in the meanwhile, the stock market had risen considerably. The breach of trust alleged lay in the trustee’s failure to take advice, and the damage the loss of investment opportunity. At first instant, the trustee were held to be saved by the exculpatory clause in the trust instrument. MIDLAND BANK TRUST v. FPSDownload
MUBARAK v. MUBARAK[2004] JRC 219
- The Court had no power to alter the terms of a trust, but by giving consent on behalf of the beneficiaries not sui juris, it enabled the trustee to give effect to the order of the English Court. MUBARAK v. MUBARAKDownload
RAHMAN v. CHASE BANK[2013] JRC 182
- Much of the judgment (here omitted) was taken up with a discussion of a maxim of Norman French law now of merely historical interest. The aspect of this decision which is of continuing interest is the finding that Mr. Rahman’s purported settlement was a sham. RAHMAN v. CHASE BANKDownload
RAWLINSON & HUNTER TRUSTEES SA v. CHIDDICKS[2019] JCA 106
- RAWLINSON & HUNTER TRUSTEES SA v. CHIDDICKSDownload
Re 1964 E Settlement[2020] JRC 140B
- The passage of most general interest in this judgment explains the self-dealing rule in relation to commonality between boards of trustees and boards of underlying companies.Re 1964 E SettlementDownload
RE A SETTLEMENT2000 JLR 173
- The trustee had applied to the Court for directions. Were the beneficiaries able to intervene and be heard? The Court so ordered, but stressing that its power to do so was discretionary and would not necessarily be exercised in every case. On the issue of what documents should be disclosed, the Court (in a passage not quoted below) was guided by the general propositions set out in Re Londonderry’s Settlement (supra). RE A SETTLEMENTDownload
RE BIRD CHARITABLE TRUST[2008] JRC 013
- A useful review of the fiduciary nature of powers vested in a Protector. RE BIRD CHARITABLE TRUSTDownload
Re H Foundation[2020] JRC 169
- Mistake: Court willing to set aside endowments to Foundation but not establishment of Foundation.Re H FoundationDownload
Re THE HHH EMPLOYEE TRUST[2010] JRC 164
- In this case, the settlor had retained certain fiduciary powers. The Court could order the settlor to provide a beneficiary with information as to the exercise of such powers. The settlor had also retained a power to amend the trust deed, which was not a fiduciary power. Re THE HHH EMPLOYEE TRUSTDownload
Re THE REPRESENTATION OF AA[1991] JLR 103
- The forum for administration provided in the trust instrument is not necessarily conclusive: the Court retains a discretion to decide for itself the most convenient forum. Re THE REPRESENTATION OF AADownload
Re THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BNP PARIBAS4 ITELR 446
- The Court helping trustees to balance their duties to a beneficiary making a claim against the trust fund and the other beneficiaries. Re THE REPRESENTATIVE OF BNP PARIBASDownload
RE THE S SETTLEMENT[1994] JLR 139
- How should the court approach a request from trustees to approve a course of action? The court adopts a supervisory approach. RE THE S SETTLEMENTDownload
RE THE S TRUST4 ITELR 206
- The Jersey equivalent of Hastings-Bass, the Jersey Court not following the English decision in Pitt v. Holt (q.v.) RE THE S TRUSTDownload
RE THE Y TRUST[2011] JRC 135
- The trustee (“N”) indicated his intention of following the settlor’s wishes in dividing the trust fund between the unmarried son A and the married son B and his family but later – on 14th December 2009 – resolved to distribute a smaller amount to A. A wanted the Court to order that N stay with his earlier intention. RE THE Y TRUSTDownload
RE: THE PEACH AND DOLPHIN TRUST[2011] JRC 117
- The Jersey Court applies the English remedy of rectification in a case where the language of a trust deed did not reflect the true intention of the settlor and her advisers. RE: THE PEACH AND DOLPHIN TRUSTDownload
REPRESENTATION OF I[2012] JRC 127B / 16ITELR
- Another case illustrating the way the court will approach a request by trustees for its sanction of a proposed course of action. REPRESENTATION OF IDownload
THE ONORATI SETTLEMENT[2002] JLR 571
- An indication that the Jersey Court might follow the English Court’s decision in Pitt v Holt, in which the Supreme Court revised the rule in Hastings-Bass. THE ONORATI SETTLEMENTDownload
WEST v. LAZARD[1993] JLR 165
- The case occupies – including its headnote – 178 pages of the Jersey Law Report. The facts are interminable and the issues numerous. But four passages from the judgement are of general interest – one on “shelf” trusts, one on exculpation clauses, one on fraud and one on restitution. WEST v. LAZARDDownload
X and BLAMPIED and ABACUS29 January 1994 (unreported)
- The executor of the deceased settlor is asking for information. The trustees know the information will be handed on to the IRS. Is it in the best interests of the beneficiaries to give the information? Their dilemma is solved by having the Court make the decision for them. X and BLAMPIED and ABACUSDownload