This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.  
 

Jersey Delivers Landmark Trust Ruling

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Carey Olsen has commented on a significant judgment delivered by the Jersey Royal Court on June 21, 2011, where Jersey chose not to apply the same methods of an English court in its decision on an important part of trust law.

According to Carey Olsen, the landmark ruling could, in circumstances where a case could be brought either in Jersey or England, attract a number of similar cases to the Jersey court.

The Jersey Royal Court ruling is of particular interest to trust practitioners as it sets a precedent for Jersey on the application of the Hastings-Bass principle following the English Court of Appeal's decisions in Futter v. Futter and Pitt v. Holt.

The Hastings-Bass principle sets out when a court may intervene in cases where a trustee acts under his or her own discretion, particularly in cases involving tax, where such decision unintentionally brings about adverse financial (usually tax) consequences on the client.

In Futter v. Futter, the trustees failed to account for Section 2(4) of the Taxation of Capital Gains Act, 1992, which prevented the client, Futter, from being able to offset personal portfolio losses against the trust’s significant stockpiled gains. The trustee in this case successfully sought a declaration that the advancements were void and of no effect, based on the rule in Hastings-Bass. As part of the judgement, the Court agreed that the effect of the trustees’ actions, when exercising a discretion, were contrary to the trustees' intention. The trustees' actions were therefore allowed to be rolled back.

The second case, Pitt v. Holt, ended with a ruling that the receiver, appointed under the Mental Health Act, held the key roles of a trustee, and was exercising his role on a discretionary basis - on the basis that the receiver was not under the instructions of the beneficiary of the trust. The unintentionally incurred additional tax liability was therefore considered in this case also.

The Royal Court was considering whether a gift should be set aside on the grounds of a donor’s mistake and ruled that it would not follow the recent English Court of Appeal decision in Pitt v Holt 2011.

In the Matter of the S Trust, Carey Olsen partner Robert MacRae, acting for the applicant, R, explained that R was seeking to have set aside, on the ground of mistake, a gift of shares to a Jersey resident trustee and the subsequent transfer of those shares to three US trusts.

The Royal Court decided it would follow the course charted in the previous Jersey case of In Re the A Trust 2009.

In that case, the Royal Court concluded that the right test was whether the donor was under some mistake of so serious a character as to render it unjust on the part of the donee to retain the property given to him, and would not have entered into the transaction but for the mistake. Such a “mistake” could include mistakes with financial consequences.

In reaching this decision the Royal Court rejected the distinction drawn by certain English cases between the effects of a transaction and consequences of a transaction mistakenly entered into, which had held that only mistakes as to effects could be set aside.

The A Trust decision was then followed by other judges in the Royal Court in subsequent cases.

However, the distinction between effects and consequences was recently upheld by the English Court of Appeal in Pitt v Holt where the Court of Appeal said that: 'the mistake must be of sufficient gravity as to satisfy the test, which provides protection to the recipient against too ready an ability of the donor to seek to recall his gift. The fact that the transaction gives rise to unforeseen fiscal liabilities is a consequence, not an effect, for this purpose, and is not sufficient to bring the jurisdiction into play.'

Cary Olsen points out that under English law, a donor would have to show that there was a mistake – that it was the right type of mistake (i.e. one as to effect, not consequence) and that it was sufficiently serious.

In its judgment in the Matter of the S Trust, the Royal Court stated that there were two competing principles. On the one hand it should not be too easy for a donor to retrieve a gift when things did not turn out precisely as he had anticipated, because legal certainty was important. On the other hand, parties should not be held to transactions into which they would not have entered had they known what the outcome would be.

The Royal Court said the English Court of Appeal’s approach leaned toward the first principle while the Royal Court's approach tended towards the second.

The English Court of Appeal in Pitt v Holt had criticised the Jersey Court for “ignoring the distinction between effects and consequences” and applying a test which is “a great deal too relaxed for the donor who seeks to recover his gift” and gives “wholly inadequate effect to the gravity of the test posed” (in the English case of Ogilvie v Littleboy 1897).

The Royal Court said that, in its view, these criticisms were misplaced. In Re the A Trust, the Royal Court “plainly had the distinction (between effects and consequences) very much in mind” but preferred to formulate its own test, which did indeed give effect to the need for the mistake to be a serious one.

Carey Olsen partner Robert MacRae, explained: “It is now clear that the test to be applied in Jersey, in considering whether a gift into trust should be set aside on the grounds of a donor’s mistake, is fundamentally different from the test applied in England."

“There may now be an advantage, in certain cases where either court has jurisdiction, for a donor to choose to bring his or her application in Jersey rather than in England."

“The Royal Court has once again shown that it is prepared not to follow English jurisprudence where it is satisfied that it is either wrong or conflicts with existing Jersey authority.”

Mailing List

Click here to manage your mailing list preferences, or view our privacy statement.


The Report

Offshore Trusts Guide: Introduction

The History of Offshore Trusts
Development of Professional Competence in the Jurisdictions
What Future for the Trust?
The New Age of Transparency
The Swiss Association of Trust Companies
The Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners

Offshore Trusts Guide: Jurisdictions

Bahamas

Bahamas: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Bahamas: 2006 Private Trust Companies Legislation

Barbados

Barbados: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Barbados: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Bermuda

Bermuda: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Bermuda: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

British Virgin Islands

British Virgin Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
British Virgin Islands: Special Trusts Act 2003
British Virgin Islands: The Trustee Act 2003
British Virgin Islands: :Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees
British Virgin Islands: New Laws on Private Trust Companies
British Virgin Islands: New Private Trust Company Regulations

Cayman Islands

Cayman Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cayman Islands: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Cook Islands

Cook Islands: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cook Islands: Supervisory and Licensing Regime and Fees

Cyprus

Cyprus: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Cyprus: Supervision, Licensing and Tax

Gibraltar

Gibraltar: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Gibraltar: Legislation, Regulation and Supervision

Guernsey

Guernsey: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Guernsey: Trusts Law 2007

Isle of Man

Isle of Man: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Isle of Man: Supervisory and Licensing Regime
Isle of Man: Uses Clients and Tax Treatment

Jersey

Jersey: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Jersey: Supervisory and Licensing Regime
Jersey: Trusts Amendment Act 2006
Jersey: Foundations

Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Liechtenstein: Regulation Supervision and Transparency
Liechtenstein: Characteristics of Liechtenstein Trusts
Liechtenstein: Foundations

Madeira

Madeira: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Malta

Malta: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Malta: The Trust and Trustees Act 2004

Mauritius

Mauritius: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Mauritius: Characteristics of the 2001 Trusts Act
Mauritius: Additional Provisions of the 2001 Trusts Act
Mauritius: Tax Treatment

Monaco

Monaco: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Nevis

Nevis: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Panama

Panama: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Panama: Requirements for Acting as Trust Company in Panama

Seychelles

Seychelles: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees

Turks & Caicos

Turks & Caicos: Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees
Turks & Caicos: The Voidable Dispositions Ordinance

Vanuatu

Vanuatu Legal Framework and Formation Rules and Fees




Latest News

IoM Consults On Funds Sector Rules
22/5/2017
The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority, which supervises the island's financial services sector, is seeking feedback on draft guidance dealing with the governance of collective investment schemes.

Dubai Tax-Free Zone Seeing New Business From India
19/5/2017
The Dubai International Financial Centre, the leading financial hub in the United Arab Emirates, has become an increasingly popular destination for Indian banks, financial institutions, and fund managers, the zone has said.

Guernsey Issues Warning On 'Sark Company Registry'
18/5/2017
The Guernsey Financial Services Commission has issued a warning concerning an entity named "Sark Company Registry," while investigations are ongoing.

Abu Dhabi Free Zone Hopes To Attract Venture Capital Firms
15/5/2017
Abu Dhabi Global Market, the low-tax international financial center, has unveiled a regulatory framework for managers of venture capital funds.

Australian Budget Targets Housing, Tax Compliance
10/5/2017
Australian Treasurer Scott Morrison's 2017 Budget focused on measures to cool the housing market and crack down on tax avoidance.

Australia Delays Action On Stapled Structures
2/5/2017
The Australian Government has decided to extend a review into the taxation of stapled structures. It will not tackle the issue at the upcoming Budget.

BVI Financial Firms Need To Develop New Niches
13/4/2017
BVI Finance, the financial services industry promotional agency, has said the industry must actively adapt to target new opportunities and promote new offerings internationally.

ADGM Revises Pooled Fund Capital Req's
11/4/2017
Abu Dhabi Global Market, the low-tax international financial center, has revised the capital requirements applicable to managers of collective investment funds, with effect from April 10, 2017.

ADGM Consults On Allowing REITs
6/4/2017
Abu Dhabi Global Market, the low-tax international financial center, is consulting stakeholders on plans to allow the establishment of private real estate investment trusts.

Gibraltar To Offer Foundations
4/4/2017
Gibraltar's Parliament recently passed a bill permitting the establishment of Private Foundations.

Gibraltar Acts To Preserve QROPS Status
3/4/2017
Gibraltar has made new pension regulations to maintain its attractiveness as a jurisdiction from which to transfer UK pensions.

Australia Consults On Taxation Of Stapled Structures
30/3/2017
The Australian Treasury has launched a consultation on the tax consequences of the re-characterization of trading income derived through the use of stapled structures.

Australian DPT Legislation Passes Senate
27/3/2017
The Australian Senate has passed legislation to introduce a diverted profits tax from July 1, 2017.

Guernsey Funds Sector Grew In 2016
27/3/2017
The total value of funds business in Guernsey grew by more than GBP28bn (USD32.5bn) last year.

New Zealand Explains Foreign Trust Disclosure Changes
27/3/2017
New Zealand has published guidance on the increased disclosure requirements for foreign trusts with New Zealand-resident trustees.