International Trust Disputes Lawyers & Legal Advice

Trust disputes

Our talented and solution-driven team excels in providing advice on trust disputes and resolving conflicts involving trustees, beneficiaries and other parties; employing alternative dispute resolution methods or representing clients in court when necessary. Whether it is breach of trust, contested wills or fiduciary duties, Appleby’s trust dispute solicitors and lawyers offer invaluable advice, ensuring clients can navigate the intricate world of trust disputes with confidence.

This expertise is borne out with numerous top tier rankings for dispute resolution across our global offices in highly respected legal directories such as Chambers and Partners, and The Legal 500.

“Appleby comprises ‘a deep pool of professional capability’ offering ‘outstanding’ advice and ‘highly effective’ advocacy in multi-jurisdictional commercial litigation and trust disputes”
– The Legal 500 (2023)

Trust disputes legal advice

As family and other wealth arrangements become more complex, trustees and beneficiaries are frequently drawn into disputes which lead to court proceedings. With that in mind, we are committed to delivering the highest possible level of client service and regularly work together across our global locations to provide expert multi-jurisdictional advice on international trust disputes.

Indeed, our trust dispute solicitors, attorneys and lawyers have significant experience in all aspects of the law, including:

Validation and administration of trusts, including the consideration of sham trusts, constructive trusteeship and tracing claims
Bringing or defending actions against trustees for breach of trust
Resolving disputes among beneficiaries or between them and trustees
Representation of minor and unascertained beneficiaries
Applications for court approval for the variation or resettlement of trusts
Applications to court for directions by trustees or beneficiaries

Find trust disputes lawyers

Are you looking for legal advice on trust disputes? Appleby’s expert trust dispute attorneys and lawyers can provide the guidance you need. With their deep understanding of trust law across multiple offshore locations, strategic approach, and track record of success, they offer comprehensive assistance in resolving complex trust disputes, protecting your interests and achieving optimal results.

Client experience

Representative work IN TRUST DISPUTES

Representing Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei

Representing Prince Jefri Bolkiah of Brunei in high-profile litigation with the Sultan of Brunei to recover assets arising out of alleged misappropriation of US$15 billion from the Brunei Investment Agency, requiring parallel proceedings in both the Cayman Islands and Jersey

Recovery of funds deposited by Kadhir Abacha

Acting in relation to the recovery of funds said to have been deposited in a bank in the Isle of Man by Abdul Kadhir Abacha, brother of the late General Abacha, the former military dictator of Nigeria

Advising a trustee in relation to conflict of interest

Advising a trustee in relation to a hostile application to remove its co-trustee as trustee of a number of trusts on the basis of a clear and obvious conflict of interest, culminating in an order from the Royal Court of Jersey removing the co-trustee

A trust dispute is any disagreement relating to the administration of a trust. It may involve issues such as interpretation of trust terms, breach of fiduciary duties, challenges to trustee actions, claims by beneficiaries or disputes over trust assets.

Yes, it is possible to dispute a trust through legal means. Trust disputes can arise due to various reasons such as breach of trust, contested provisions, undue influence or allegations of mismanagement.

More news

6 Aug 2026

The Rights of Sanctioned Litigants to access to the Court: Court of Appeal issues Key Decision in the BVI

The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has delivered a significant judgment in AO Alfa-Bank v Kipford Ventures Limited, overturning a stay of proceedings and reinstating a US$142 million freezing injunction. The decision provides important guidance on access to justice, sanctions, and interim relief in the BVI.

Andrew Willins, KC, Tamara Cameron

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers

5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

3 Aug 2026 | News

Appleby Launches Isle of Man Summer Internship Programme 2026

Claire Milne WS

3 Aug 2026 | News

Jon Barclay and Simon Florance join Appleby Guernsey as Dispute Resolution Partners

Jon Barclay, Simon Florance

30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial. The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.