In 1994, by a series of trust deeds, Mrs Pesenti established four settlements in the Isle of Man known as the RR1, RR2, RR3 and RR4 Trusts, each of which was for the benefit of one of her children and his/her heirs. The RR2 Trust (the trust), which alone formed the subject of this case, took as its beneficiaries the appellant and her issue born before the perpetuity date, together with two named charities. The dispositive provisions of the trust required the trustees to hold the trust fund and its income on discretionary trusts for all or such one or more exclusively of the others or oth...
The testatrix (T), whose husband predeceased her, was survived by her four children, B1, B2, B3 and B4. T had appointed B3 and the partners of a solicitor firm as the executors of her will. She left the residue of her estate on trust to be divided into four equal shares: one for the benefit of each of B1, B2 and B3, and the fourth upon discretionary trusts, which included a wide power of appointment, for the benefit of B4 and his children and remoter issue. At the time of the hearing, B4 had three adult children and one minor grandchild. T died in 2010 and probate of her will was granted...
The trustees of a settlement sought directions as to whether they could advance capital to certain beneficiaries pursuant to their powers under s32 Trustee Act 1925, as varied by a clause of the trust deed, so as to bring the trust to an end. They sought a declaration as to whether the proposed advancements were within the power as a matter of construction, (ie whether there were beneficiaries with interests prior to those of the beneficiaries in whose favour the advancements were to be made, whose consent was required), and, presuming that they were within that power, the court...
Continue reading "Fiduciary powers: Stocktaking"
A was survived by C, his sister; H, with whom he had had a relationship; E and F, who were the daughters of A and H; B, with whom A had also had a relationship; and G, the son of A and B. C was one of the executors of A’s will. Each of A and C owned 50% of the shares in X Ltd (the company) and on A’s death C remained a director and was in control of the company. During A’s lifetime, a property (Property 1) was acquired in his name and remained so at his death.
There were three claims following A’s death: (1) H claimed to be the beneficial owner of Property 1 (the property claim); ...
The claimant as one of the executors and trustees of the estate of Dame Zaha Hadid deceased, who died in 2016, brought proceedings under s50 of the Administration of Estates Act 1985 for the removal of the first to third defendants, the claimant’s co-executors and co-trustees. The claimant and the first to third defendants had had great difficulty working together in the administration of the deceased’s estate. By the time of the hearing an agreement had been reached between the parties.
Pursuant to that agreement, an employee benefit trust (EBT) was to be declar...
The claimant and the first to third defendants were the executors and trustees of the estate of Dame Zaha Hadid deceased, who died in 2016. The claimant and the first to third defendants had had great difficulty working together in the administration of the deceased’s estate. The claimant brought proceedings under s50 of the Administration of Estates Act 1985 for the removal of the first to third defendants and they counterclaimed seeking equivalent relief against him. By the time of the hearing an agreement had been reached between the claimant and defendant trustees. ...
Continue reading "Trusts: Lost in translation"
In the course of the claimant’s application as trustee of four discretionary trusts in similar terms governed by English law for the blessing of momentous decisions, AS (the settlor and the original protector of the trusts) died.
The trusts had been varied soon after they were declared to expand the powers of the protector to give and withhold consent to the exercise of powers by the trustee. In the absence of a protector the trustee was free to exercise those powers without obtaining a third-party consent. The trusts were administered in Jersey on behalf of the claimant, a profes...
H and C were two directors and trustees of a charitable company limited by guarantee. They, together with L, were the members of the company. In July 2015 H and C agreed that, subject to the approval of the Charity Commission or the court, C would resign as a director and member of the company and the company would make a grant of $360m to a charity founded by C.
Companies Act 2006, s217 provides that:
‘A company may not make a payment for loss of office to a director of the company unless the payment has been approved by a resolution of the members of ...