In the Representation of Jasmine Trustees Limited & Another [2015] JRC196 (in which Appleby acted for the successful applicant beneficiary) the Court took the exceptional step of setting aside the purported appointments of both Protectors and Trustees.

In its judgment, the Court confirmed that any person who appoints a new trustee or protector is exercising a fiduciary power. Accordingly, all such appointments must be made in good faith and in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole. In addition, the power must be exercised reasonably, with the appointor having taken into account only relevant matters. The appointor may not exercise the power for an ulterior purpose.

In this instance, which concerned two family trusts, the appointors were an outgoing protector and a majority of the adult beneficiaries. The Court’s ruling therefore is helpful in setting out the duties owed by all appointors, whether they are trustees or other persons connected with the trust.

Background to the application

The proceedings were initially brought by the trustees of both trusts. The applications were prompted by the actions of the then protector (the father in this case), who had attempted to remove the current trustees and replace them with previously unknown trustees. As the current trustees were not satisfied with the information provided by proposed new trustees, they sought directions from the Court as whether they ought to put into effect the Protector’s wishes of appointing new trustees. However, by the time of the hearing, all the adult beneficiaries (including the Protector) had indicated that they did not support the appointment of the new trustees.

In addition to the trustee issue, the Court upon the application of one of the beneficiaries was also asked to determine the purported appointment of two sons (who were also beneficiaries of the trusts) as protectors. In respect of one trust, the father as Protector had sought to appoint his sons as his successors to the role of protector, and in respect of the other trust, the majority of the adult beneficiaries had sought to appoint the sons as protectors.

Those protector appointments were challenged by the daughter (another adult beneficiary) on the basis that they were invalid or, alternatively, that the new protectors ought to be removed.

Appointment of Trustees

The Court found that the father had failed to take into account material factors including the expertise, experience and financial standing of the new trustees, but had taken into account immaterial factors. The Court therefore concluded that his decision to appoint the new trustee was not a decision which a reasonable appointor could reach and was thus invalid.

Appointment of Protectors

As indicated above, the Court also found that the appointments of the protectors were invalid.

In its judgment, the Court reiterated that it was not for the Court to interfere in a reasonable decision, rather the Court’s jurisdiction could only be invoked if an appointor had made a decision that no reasonable appointor could reach.

There were three main reasons why the Court found the decision to appoint the brother as protectors was unreasonable. First, there was found to be an actual or potential conflict of interest arising from litigation in the United States (where the brothers and sister were on opposing sides although there was a conflict of evidence as to the materiality and nature of this litigation). Secondly, the sons were found to be insufficiently independent from their father, who had arguably behaved in an inconsistent and controlling way towards the daughter while he was protector. Finally, the Court agreed with the daughter that there had been a complete and irretrievable breakdown in relations between the daughter and the rest of the family meaning that the brothers would be unsuitable to act as protectors of trusts of which the daughter was a beneficiary.

Conclusion

This case has shown that when the details and circumstances are analysed in a comprehensive and forensic fashion, appointments may be found to be invalid.

As such, this case serves as an important reminder to all appointors to consider their duties carefully when exercising fiduciary powers to ensure that they are acting reasonably, and in good faith, taking into account only the relevant factors when making an appointment.

Going forward, as best practice, practitioners should ensure that appointors prepare contemporaneous notes explaining why the appointment in question is considered appropriate and reasonable. Bearing in mind the Court’s ruling that a person is exercising a fiduciary power when appointing a protector, such an exercise would underline the importance of the appointment, and ought to bring to light any potential issues which could expose the appointment to challenge.

PDF Version

Type

Insight

Locations

Jersey

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
12 Aug 2019 |

Enhancing Jersey’s Philanthropic Wealth Structures

There are distinguishing characteristics between charity (which tends to focus on the relief of a pa...

4 Jul 2019 |

Lease – The Dangers of DIY

Like freehold conveyances, leases for terms of more than 9 years must be passed before the Royal Cou...

2 Jul 2019 |

Jersey Property Security and Costs – Good News for Lenders

The case concerned a dégrèvement. This an insolvency procedure which involves creditors being call...

28 Jun 2019 |

Internal Investigations - Evidence for the Prosecution

Sophisticated organisations are frequently required to undertake internal investigations. These can ...

Contributors: Anthony Williams
26 Jun 2019 |

Regulatory Headwinds

Faced with increased scrutiny from regulators on both global and jurisdictional levels, businesses m...

Contributors: David Dorgan
24 Jun 2019 |

Reflections on the 5th Annual European Fund Finance Symposium

Several members of our global fund finance team representing offices throughout the Crown Dependenci...

19 Jun 2019 |

Beneficial Ownership Update: Crown Dependencies

The Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) have announced a joint policy commitme...

Contributors: Alison MacKrill, Caren Pegg
17 Jun 2019 |

Using Jersey Structures for UK Real Estate Acquisitions

Much has been written regarding the changes to UK capital gains tax (CGT) which came into force on 6...

17 Jun 2019 |

From Legal to Compliance to Regulatory Risk – Appleby can help your business

Our multi-disciplinary teams of lawyers, IT security experts and crisis management and risk professi...

12 Jun 2019 |

An Insight into Funds Financing in Jersey

We are used to seeing good news stories about Jersey’s funds industry and its continuing growth. O...