- No rewriting history—the flexibility of Jersey’s remedies for mistake and inadequate deliberation (Representation of The Grundy Trust)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Private Client analysis: In an important case, the Royal Court declared voidable the decision of the former trustee of The Grundy Trust to irrevocably exclude a beneficiary, pursuant to Article 47H of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (as amended). However, rather than setting the exclusion aside entirely (as had previously been the remedy granted in such cases), the court ruled that the exclusion would have effect as if it had been exercised in the manner which the former trustee should have contemplated and adopted at the time when it originally exercised its power. In making the order, the court made clear that it would not ‘re-write history’, ‘make a new decision which the [former] trustee wished it had made at the time’ or ‘substitute a different transaction for that which was undertaken’, but would exercise its power to declare that the former trustee’s exercise of its fiduciary power would have such effect as the court may determine. Written by Andreas Kistler, partner at Carey Olsen Jersey LLP, and the advocate for the trustee in this case.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial