![]() The terms of the proposed new trust were broadly similar to the Trusts with the main difference being that, unlike the Trusts (which had power to exclude but no power to add beneficiaries), it contained a power to add beneficiaries. A particular concern outlined in the advice taken by the Trustees seems to have been the approach of the English courts to ancillary relief claims and the risk of the English court deeming a trust to be a nuptial settlement and, therefore, it being able to be varied by the English court. ![]() The Trustees were advised that it should be a condition of any future advances/benefit that the recipient and his/her spouse (i) enter into a prenuptial agreement, and (ii) recognise and accept that the Trusts are both non nuptial and should not be pursued as a part of a claim for a financial remedy on divorce. The Trustees had received counsel's opinion that spouses should be irrevocably excluded but that a new fifth trust be created, which does not irrevocably exclude spouses. As far as the Trustees and the currently ascertained beneficiaries were concerned, they perceived the greatest risk of future litigation to be claims brought by future spouses on divorce. not involving the category of beneficiary whose position would be impacted by the Trustees' Decision). In this latter context, the judgment notes that there had been a history of litigation involving wider members of the family, although not involving spouses (i.e. ![]() The rationales for the Trustees' consideration of a comprehensive overhaul of the Trusts in 2020 were to ensure that the Trusts met the needs of the current and future beneficiaries and to limit the risks of further litigation. The Trustees sought the blessing of the Royal Court in respect of these momentous decisions made in respect of the Trusts, including the Trustees' Decision.Īs there were unborn and unascertained beneficiaries of the Trusts, including unborn spouses, widows or widowers of the unborn children and remoter issue (whose irrevocable exclusion was proposed by the Trustees' Decision), a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent their interests. D and E) and remoter issue from the beneficial class of the Trusts and to create a new trust with assets of £7.5million in which spouses, widows and widowers would be included in the beneficial class (along with B, his spouse or widow and his children and remoter issue) (the Trustees' Decision). Two of these are redacted from the published judgment but the third decision, which is the focus of the published elements of the judgment, was a decision to irrevocably exclude the spouses, widows and widowers of B and C's children (i.e. This led to three decisions by the trustee, all supported by the currently ascertained beneficiaries. In 2020, the Trustees proceeded to consider a comprehensive amendment of the terms of the Trusts, in consultation with the currently ascertained beneficiaries and with the benefit of advice from leading tax, trust and matrimonial counsel. The currently ascertained beneficiaries of the Trusts were convened to the proceedings: B, his wife (C), their son (D) and their daughter (E). The trustee of the V, W and X Trusts and the trustee of the Y Trust will be referred to together herein as the Trustees. Ocorian Limited was the Trustee of the V, W and X Trusts and Ocorian Trustee (UK) Limited became the trustee of the Y Trust on 31 March 2020, replacing Ocorian Limited. The V, W, X and Y Trusts (the Trusts) were discretionary trusts in near identical terms, governed by Jersey law. However, some of the key available background is as follows. The judgment of the Royal Court in Re the V, W, X and Y Trusts is heavily redacted, meaning that it is not possible to have full context and background to the Royal Court's decision. This judgment raises interesting questions as to how to walk the reasonability line as a trustee and demonstrates the exacting, sometimes inquisitorial, process adopted by the supervisory court in Jersey to ensure that trustees do strike the appropriate balance. The case is of particular interest because, the Royal Court declined to bless a trustee decision which seems, on the face of the Court's judgment, to have been carefully considered and supported by the currently ascertained beneficiaries of the trusts in question and by legal advice, on the basis that the Court was left sufficiently uncomfortable with the decision to be in doubt as to its propriety. ![]() The recent judgment of the Royal Court of Jersey in Re the V, W, X and Y Trusts JRC 208 provides an important example of such a refusal of a blessing application. The narrow scope of the court's jurisdiction when being asked to bless momentous decisions of trustees means that the occasions where the courts refuse such blessings are usually quite limited.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |