//
archives

Indmenity

This category contains 22 posts

Real and substantial connection

The background facts of NZ Trust Corporation Ltd v Bonnard Lawson Geneve SA & Ors are set out by Associate Judge Gardiner at [1] to [4] as follows: The issues for the Court to determined can be summarised as whether: The following time-line sets out key events that have lead to the proceedings before the … Continue reading

Golden egg scramble

McLauglin v McLauglin relates to claims regarding the management of a family trust and the cost consequences of the proceeds, which are significant. The background of the matter is summarised by French J, who delivered the Court of Appeal’s decision as follows: The trust that is the subject of these proceedings, the Ashely Trust (the … Continue reading

No ranking between trustees

The Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council (the Privy Council) has ruled four to three in Equity Trust (Jersey) v Halab and ITG v Fort Trustees (Guernsey that there is no chronological priority for trustees where there is insolvency. Rather the approach taken is one of pari passu: that is, trust assets should be … Continue reading

Hostility and dysfunction

Family trusts can raise complex considerations and perhaps none moreso than those relating to the changing of the guard as the intergenerational control aspect of family trusts is brought to bear. A contemporary consideration of these matters has been played out on the Triezenberg v Mason chronicles. The most recent iteration is the unsuccessful appeal … Continue reading

Beddoes and beyond

By way of background in Vincent Family Corporate Trust Limited (as trustee of the ET and P Vincent Trusts) as noted by Van Bohemen J (above and below): In Vincent Family Corporate Trustee the parties were urged to find resolution. When this was not possible the court was required to determine matters. Helpfully, Van Bohemen … Continue reading

Damp Squib

Being a trustee is increasingly more skittles than beer. “Beddoe orders” are an avenue for trustees to pursue or defend proceedings without facing personal liability. McCallum v McCallum concerns an appeal against partial Beddoe orders. At the opening of his novel Anna Karenina, the Russian novelist Tolstoy writes “All Happy families resemble one another, but … Continue reading

Barring further claims

It is not uncommon for trustees to seek a release from beneficiaries prior to the final distribution of trust assets.   However, where beneficiaries are reluctant or unwilling a trustee may quite properly be concerned to protect the trustee’s position in the event of a subsequent claim. The avenues to address such a consideration were canvased … Continue reading

Turning of the tide?

McGuire v Earl is a successful application for the following trust information: statements of accounts copies of all Minutes and Resolutions any documents pertaining to any distributions all documents pertaining to any gifting or debt incurred, and bank statements for all bank accounts. The trust in question was settled by Mr McGuire’s father and Mr … Continue reading

Disputatious, unreasonable and uncooperative

MacIntosh v Thomas relates to the administration of an estate where there has been considerable disharmony between the beneficiaries and the trustees in circumstances where the court has acknowledged that the trustees have displayed “displayed considerable patience, forbearance and professionalism in dealing with the behaviour of the [beneficiaries] …” The decision is largely fact-specific.  However, usefully … Continue reading

Play nice

Geneva Trust Company v Tchenguiz is one of many judgments of the Jersey Royal Court that relate to the Tchenguiz Trusts.  In this case the Geneva Trust Company (Geneva) sought reimbursement of costs it incurred defending proceedings brought against it in the English High  Court.  A brief history of the matter is set out in the … Continue reading

Categories

Archives