Case: Schmidt v Rosewood Trust Ltd [2003] UKPC 26; [2003] WTLR 565; [2004] WTLR 887

Re X (Trust) [2012] JRC 171

The plaintiff/representors (A and B) are the principal beneficiaries of X Trust, a discretionary trust governed by the law of Jersey with the first defendant/respondent (C) being the sole trustee. There are other stipendiary beneficiaries.

It is a large trust and owns shares in a public quoted company that have plummeted in value. No claim in respect of this loss has been made. However, there are other losses totalling nearly £100m and A and B wish to bring a breach of trust claim in respect of these losses.

If A and B are successful in their claim they will not personall...

U Ltd v B & ors [2011] JRC 131

B had created the W Settlement (the trust) in 1989 as one of a number of settlements created for the benefit of B, his three sisters, their issue and their remoter issue. As the settlor, B and any wife of his were expressly excluded from benefit under the trust (but not from the other family settlements).

B and his wife Q had been involved in divorce proceedings before the Family Division of the High Court (the English court) for three years. It was considered that the trust’s value (some £2.5m based on publicly available information) greatly exceeded the other settlements&#...

North Shore Ventures Ltd v Anstead Holdings Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 11

The substantive action concerned a written agreement between North Shore Ventures Limited (North Shore) and Anstead Holdings Inc (Anstead) made in March 2003 (the agreement). In 2008 Anstead’s assets were transferred into trusts of which Mr Fomichev and Mr Peganov (the appellants) and their family members were discretionary beneficiaries (the trusts). On 20 August 2008 North Shore issued a claim against Anstead and the appellants for monies owing under the agreement. On 21 June 2010, Newey J gave judgment against the appellants for sums in excess of $50m. On 9 March 2011, the Court...