Lloyds Trust Company v Fargoso & ors

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...

Re the Onorati Settlement [2013] JRC 182

December 2015 #155

This was an application by two beneficiaries of the Onorati Settlement, a Jersey discretionary trust (the trust), to set aside a deed of appointment distributing the trust fund to them. The application was made under the so-called principle in Hastings-Bass on the basis that the trustee had failed to take into account considerations which they ought to have taken into account when exercising their discretion, namely the UK tax consequences of making the appointment. Their application was on the basis that the Respondent (the trustee) had failed to take adequate tax advice.


Re the A Trust [2012] JRC169A

September 2013 #132

Some of the beneficiaries (the representor beneficiaries) of two Jersey trusts applied for an order to remove the protector of each trust from office. The beneficiaries felt that their relationship with the protector had broken down. The majority of the other adult beneficiaries who did not take part in the legal action shared this view.

The protector did not wish to retire. He felt he was the living guardian and enforcer of the settlors’ wishes. He insisted that he felt no hostility towards the beneficiaries.

Held (removing the protector):

  1. (1) Th...

Re X (Trust) [2012] JRC 171

May 2013 #129

The plaintiff/representors (A and B) are the principal beneficiaries of X Trust, a discretionary trust governed by the law of Jersey with the first defendant/respondent (C) being the sole trustee. There are other stipendiary beneficiaries.

It is a large trust and owns shares in a public quoted company that have plummeted in value. No claim in respect of this loss has been made. However, there are other losses totalling nearly £100m and A and B wish to bring a breach of trust claim in respect of these losses.

If A and B are successful in their claim they will not personall...

U Ltd v B & ors [2011] JRC 131

April 2013 #128

B had created the W Settlement (the trust) in 1989 as one of a number of settlements created for the benefit of B, his three sisters, their issue and their remoter issue. As the settlor, B and any wife of his were expressly excluded from benefit under the trust (but not from the other family settlements).

B and his wife Q had been involved in divorce proceedings before the Family Division of the High Court (the English court) for three years. It was considered that the trust’s value (some £2.5m based on publicly available information) greatly exceeded the other settlements&#...

Re The Shinorvic Trust [2012] JRC081

March 2013 #127

The Shinorvic Trust (the trust) was established by VB (the settlor) on 19 July 1988. The trust was a discretionary trust governed by Jersey law. The original trustees of the trust were the Radcliffes Trustee Company SA (Radcliffe) and the original beneficiaries were the settlor’s sister MF and her children and remoter issue. Clause 2(3) of the trust deed conferred a power on the settlor to add beneficiaries. The power to add was exercisable by ‘instrument’ executed by the settlor. Clause 2(1)(f) of the trust deed defined an ‘instrument’ as ...

Bagus Investments Ltd v Kastening [2010] JRC 144

December 2012 #125

A Jersey fiduciary services provider known as the Lavy Hancox Group (the LH Group) was, during the 1990s, the forum for fraudulent activities by its beneficial owner, Mr Raymond Bellows (Bellows).

The plaintiff/appellant (a BVI company) was administered by the LH Group. They alleged that the LH Group, unlawfully and without authority, caused US$480,000 to be transferred to an account (the Midland account) held in the name of a subsidiary company, Lavy Hancox Management Ltd.

The defendant/respondent was also in receipt of the LH Group’s fiduciary services: Levy Hancox ...

Re Y Trust [2011] JRC 155A

July/August 2012 #121

The court had previously sanctioned an apportionment of a trust fund between A in the sum of £1.9m (part of which would comprise writing off a £300,000 loan due from him), C in the sum of £0.5m and a US Trust for the benefit of D, F and E in the sum of £1.0m. At that time, there was, in the trust fund, cash in the sum of £3.4m and it was expected that after the apportionment there would be a surplus of approximately £300,000. A was disaffected with that decision. Subsequently, it transpired that after C had received her £0.5m and a further loan had been made to A there was insufficient c...