Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Ltd WTLR(w) 2022-03

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | Web Only

Lloyds Trust Company v Fragoso & ors [2013] JRC 211

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2017 #166

The representor was the trustee (T) of a Jersey law governed discretionary trust (R) established in 1999 and valued at £402,000. The first respondent was the settlor (S). The class of beneficiaries included S’s wife and three children.

When R was established, S described himself as a civil engineer and informed T that the funds settled were proceeds of engineering consultancy contracts which he had worked on over the last 20 years. He did not disclose that he held public office in Mozambique.

In 2010, T discovered that a company had been convicted in England of paying bribe...

Book Review: It’s not all academic

Mark Feeny reviews the 33rd edition of the classic Snell’s Equity As a seasoned campaigner, now into my fourth decade of trust practice, I imagine that a lot of what I do on a daily basis is guided by instinct. That instinct has been honed by learning from the many mistakes which lie in wait …
This post is only available to members.

Secret Commissions: Unauthorised profits – an update

Mark Pawlowski looks at a landmark ruling on how an agent who has taken advantage of a bribe or received a secret commission in breach of their fiduciary duties holds the amount received ‘So, what has been the subject of judicial and academic controversy for over two centuries has now, at last, been authoritatively put …
This post is only available to members.

Bribery And Constructive Trusts: Channelling dirty money

Lloyds Trust Co (CI) Ltd v Fragoso [2013] provides clarification for Jersey on how trustees hold assets derived from bribes in a trust. Alexa Saunders gives the lowdown ‘In Fragoso [2013], the Royal Court of Jersey was in a position to make its own decision as to whether to follow Reid [1993] or Sinclair [2011].’ …
This post is only available to members.

Fiduciary Duties: Rigour at all times

Pennyfeathers underscores the stringency of directors’ duties and indicates when the court will lift the corporate veil to provide a remedy for breach. Nicholas Broomfield explains ‘Lord Sumption had affirmed a limited power of the court to pierce the corporate veil in circumstances where a party was abusing corporate personality to evade their obligations.’ The …
This post is only available to members.

Sharma v Sharma & ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1287

Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136

In April 2003 qualified dentist Anushika Sharma acquired her first dental practice. In January 2007 she acquired a second practice and in July 2007 she was provided with an opportunity to purchase a third. This opportunity prompted a family meeting to discuss Anushika’s expanding empire. Jagesh Sharma (Sunny), Keshbala Sharma and Rajesh Sharma (Anushika’s then husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively) and Anushika were in attendance. During this meeting it was determined that a company (ADC Ltd) would be set up to purchase the third practice rather than Anushika doing this ...

Secret Commissions: Unauthorised profits

Mark Pawlowski and James Brown consider a recent ruling on proprietary relief for a secret commission acquired by an agent for securing the purchase of a property The difficulty confronting future courts will be to identify which situations fall within the opportunity category identified in Sinclair and which fall outside it. It is trite law …
This post is only available to members.