Tchenguiz-Imerman v Imerman [2013] highlights the tensions between courts of different jurisdiction, despite the principle of comity. Richard Tambling reports ‘The judge accepted that the interests of comity have a powerful place in cases involving offshore trusts when the English courts will often depend on the trusts’ home courts for assistance.’ This article considers what …
Continue reading "Jurisdiction: Tug of war"
This post is only available to members.
Wills & Trusts Law Reports | January/February 2014 #136Beneficiaries of a number of offshore discretionary trusts were joined as parties on their application to contested financial remedy proceedings. The court had made an order that these beneficiaries should disclose copies of documents provided to them for the purposes of an application that had been made to the Royal Court of Jersey (RCtJ) by the trustee of some of those trusts. The RCtJ had given the beneficiaries permission to make such disclosure if they were ordered to do so but expressed concerns about and invited the court not to require such disclosure [2012] (2) JLR 51.
Th...
James Riby and Cora Brown focus on the courts’ approach in cases involving trust assets ‘Recent decisions have appeared to limit the extent to which the court should attempt to “judicially encourage” independent trustees to make payments to potential beneficiaries so that the beneficiary can pay an ancillary relief order.’The decision in M v W …
Continue reading "Trusts: Beyond reach"
This post is only available to members.
