The Guernsey Court concluded that the approach to this jurisdiction should be the same as that applied by the Royal Court of Jersey (the Jersey Court) in the case of the A Trust [2012] (which looked to the English authority of Letterstedt v Broers (1884)), namely that it is not a jurisdiction that should be exercised lightly and that it must be established that any protector continuing in office would have an adverse impact on the welfare of the beneficiaries and the competent administration of the trust.

This case comes as a timely reminder to ensure that, where a protector is appointed to a trust, the trust instrument adequately provides for the removal of the protector in all eventualities.

Background

This case concerned a discretionary settlement, which was referred to as “the K Trust”. The application was brought by 11 of the 14 adult beneficiaries of the K Trust, requesting that the protector of the K Trust be removed by the Guernsey Court with immediate effect.

The beneficiaries had lost trust and confidence in the protector following a breakdown in relations between the protector and the settlor’s wife, rendering the trust “unworkable”, as most of the powers of trustees required the protector’s consent. The final straw was the act of the protector seeking tax advice in relation to an issue that everyone else considered had been adequately addressed. The judge in the Guernsey Court viewed this as a clear demonstration of something going beyond mere mutual hostility and distrust.

Express Powers in the Trust Instrument

The trust instrument did contain a power to remove the protector, but this power was vested in the person who had the power to appoint an additional or replacement protector – namely, the protector herself.

The protector did have the power to retire from the role, but only upon the appointment of a replacement protector. The beneficiaries were concerned that similar issues would arise with her choice of replacement protector, and so sought the removal of the existing protector without replacement.

Considerations

In the absence of Guernsey case law, the Guernsey Court considered case law deriving from similar applications in other jurisdictions, including cases from the Isle of Man and Jersey.

The Guernsey Court’s attention was brought to the Isle of Man test established in the case of Re Papadimitriou, where Deemster Cain ruled that “the court would only remove a protector when it was essential to prevent a trust failing”. The Guernsey Court noted that this was a high standard to satisfy and so considered the approach of the Jersey Court in the case of the A Trust where the Jersey Court acknowledged the dictum of Lord Blackburn in Letterstedt v Broers that: “in exercising so delicate a jurisdiction as that of removing a trustee, their Lordships do not venture to lay down any general rule beyond the very broad principle above enunciated, that their main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries”.

In this case, the Guernsey Court considered that the role of the protector was fiduciary, but noted that following existing case law on the Guernsey Court’s powers in relation to application brought under section 69 of the Trust (Guernsey) Law 2007, the Guernsey Court would have had the power to remove the protector whether the status of the protector was fiduciary or not.

Conclusion

The Guernsey Court preferred the less restrictive approach of the Jersey Court and, whilst acknowledging that this is not a jurisdiction to be exercised lightly, concluded that the protector of the K Trust be removed from office.

Deputy Bailiff McMahon explained that “the evidence of the breakdown in relationships and how that had resulted in the K Trust’s affairs not being progressed as perhaps otherwise they would have been, in my judgment, satisfies the test and justifies the making of an order for removal”. He added that “she should have realised much earlier than she apparently did how untenable her position had become”.

PDF Version

Type

Insight

Locations

Guernsey, Jersey

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

23 Feb 2022

Anonymisation of decisions: an invitation to consider this more but the unscrupulous need not apply!

The adage that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” derives from a ...

25 Nov 2021

Regulatory Approach to ESG across the Crown Dependencies

New requirements may require investment products to display a label reflecting their sustainability ...

30 Jul 2021

Fighting international fraud

First published in New Law Journal, July 2021. Appleby partners Anthony William and Jared Dann an...

Contributors: Jared Dann, Claire Corkish
12 Mar 2021

Material adverse change clauses in light of the Covid-19 pandemic

Experts from each of our key global offices provide jurisdiction specific advice and answer question...

8 Mar 2021

Appleby Celebrates International Women’s Day

International Women’s Day is celebrated annually in support of gender equality and equal participa...

23 Feb 2021

Fit and Proper in the Channel Islands – A Regulatory Enforcement Update

It is sometimes easy to forget with all that has happened over the last 12 months that there was a w...

1 Dec 2020

Reflections from the Virtual Fund Finance Symposium

The Fund Finance Association’s Virtual Symposium took place from 16th to 20th November. Attendees ...

Contributors: Fiona Chan
27 Nov 2020

NAV Facilities: A Promising Vaccine for Funds in the Era of Covid-19?

The spotlight has been on NAV facilities and other bespoke financings as an area poised for growth, ...