Jersey: Invalid Appointments Of Protectors And Trustees: The Jersey Royal Court Provides Fresh Guidance

Last Updated: 16 October 2015
Article by Fraser Robertson and Amy Benest

The Royal Court of Jersey has recently provided important guidance in relation to the circumstances in which the Court may hold the exercise of a fiduciary power to be invalid.

In the case of In the Representation of Jasmine Trustees Limited [2015]JRC196 (in which Appleby acted for the successful applicant) the Court took the exceptional step upon the application of a beneficiary to declare the appointment of Protectors and Trustees to be invalid.

In its judgment, the Court confirmed that a person (whether they are a retiring trustee, or any other person with a power of appointment under the trust instrument) is exercising a fiduciary power both in relation to a power to appoint new trustees and a power to appoint a new protector.

The Royal Court also stated that when exercising such a fiduciary power of appointment, the appointor is under a duty to act as follows:

  • In good faith and in the interests of the beneficiaries as a whole;
  • To act reasonably;
  • To take into account relevant matters, and only those matters; and
  • Not to act for an ulterior purpose.

In this exceptional case, the Court held that the appointments of new trustees and new protectors were invalid as the appointors had not acted in accordance with the four above principles identified by the Court, and the fiduciaries were thus effectively removed from office.

The Court's determination that the duties owed by appointors of trustees and protectors are the same, whether the appointor is an outgoing trustee or a majority of adult beneficiaries, is of interest and benefit to both trust practitioners and advisers alike.

The proceedings were brought by the trustees of two family trusts and initially concerned the appointments of new trustees and protectors in relation to two family trusts. The beneficiaries of both trusts were almost identical, and included a father, his three children (defined as an elder son, a younger son (together, the sons) and a daughter) and the seven grandchildren (four of whom were adults at the time of the hearing).

The proceedings

The trustees issued the proceedings as they had unexpectedly received a deed of removal and appointment of trustees executed by the then protector of both trusts (the father). The purported new trustee was incorporated in New Zealand and unknown to the trustees. Having received the deed, the trustees sought pertinent information from the new trustees but no satisfactory replies were provided. The trustees were also concerned that the father would not or could not explain his rationale in appointing Kairos. The trustees therefore sought directions from the Royal Court as to what if any action they should take regarding the purported appointment of new trustees.

Two further appointments took place shortly after the Representations were issued: the father retired as protector and appointed his sons to act in his place in respect of one trust, and in respect of the other, he resigned as protector prompting a majority of the adult beneficiaries (in fact, all of the adult beneficiaries other than the daughter) to appoint the sons to act as protectors. Both methods of appointment complied with the formalities required by each trust.

The daughter then issued a summons challenging the purported appointments of the sons as protectors of both trusts on the basis that they were invalid or, alternatively, that they ought to be removed.

Purported appointment of Trustees

By the time of the hearing, not only did the daughter object to the appointment of the new trustees, but the sons (as purported protectors) also attempted to remove the new trustees and the father had stated that he was content for the appointment to be 'withdrawn'.

The Court concluded that the father, when he appointed the new trustees, had failed to take into account relevant factors, such as the "expertise, experience, financial standing etc. of the propose trustee", and had not reached a decision that a reasonable appointor could have reached. The father had therefore not exercised the power in line with the required duties and the appointment was accordingly found to be invalid.

Purported appointment of Protectors

As regards the appointments of the protectors, these were also found to be invalid. It was necessary for the Court to consider a large section of the family's history in reaching its decision.

It was the daughter's position that the purported appointments of the sons as protectors of both trusts could not have been made by reasonable appointors for three main reasons:

  1. that there is an actual or potential conflict of interest arising from the litigation in the United States (see below);
  2. that the sons are not sufficiently independent from the father; and
  3. that there is a complete and irretrievable breakdown in relations between the daughter and the rest of the family on the other.

As stated above, the conflict of interest arises from the US proceedings brought by the daughter, against (amongst others) the father and the sons, which included allegations as to improper conduct in the administration of the companies which had been listed in the general release, and in which she had believed she had a beneficial interest. The proceedings also included allegations of forgery, fraudulent acts, breaches of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. The Court found that due to the remedies sought in the proceedings, the outcome of the US proceedings would have "material financial impact" on the sons.

As regards the lack of independence from the father, the sons' evidence provided in the US proceedings confirmed they had done whatever the father asked of them, included signing corporate documents, and had viewed their position as directors of the companies as "titular titles" only. This along with other factors and instances, led the daughter to believe that if the sons were confirmed as protectors, they would disregard their own fiduciary duties and act in accordance with the father's wishes.

Finally, submissions were made as to the seriousness of the breakdown in relations between the daughter and the sons and the loss of trust in her brothers after the preparation of a document referred to as a "general release" which, if she had signed it, would have been to their benefit. The purpose of the general release was to confirm in a legally binding document that the father would approve a distribution to fund the lease extension if the daughter released her rights to all and any property owned by the father, or in which he had an interest and included various non-compete clauses. In the end, the daughter did not sign the general release as the trustee decided that it would be more tax efficient for the lease extension funds to be provided by way of loan (which did not require protector consent) rather than by distribution.

The general release led to a complete breakdown in relations in the family: since then, the daughter has not had contact with her brothers. Indeed, the sons did not contact her despite her suffering with cancer, getting married and having a child.

The sons' deposition evidence in the US proceedings also set out their feelings towards their sister in that they agreed with the father that she was always after money and that they were angry with her for suing them. In those circumstances, it was submitted that it would be impossible for the sons to act impartially and fairly as protectors.

The father's position meanwhile was that he considered his sons to be the best persons to act as protectors for three main reasons: first, due to their professional qualifications; secondly, their appointment is supported by most of the beneficiaries; thirdly, the sons are members of the family and so could act as a link between the family and trustees. Although the father conceded that his relationship with the daughter was troubled, he thought the sons could work with the daughter.

For their part, the sons considered themselves able to faithfully discharge their duties to all the beneficiaries. However, the sons also stated that most of the family had lost trust and confidence in the trustees due in part to their decision to grant a loan to the daughter in 2010.

The Court's decision

The Court reminded itself that it is not for the Court to interfere with an appointor's decision if it would have made a different appointment; rather the Court's jurisdiction may only be invoked if the appointor had reached a decision that no reasonable appointor could reach.

The Court accepted that the trust instrument envisaged a degree of conflict of interest, and so the fact that the sons were also beneficiaries who may be thought to have adverse interests to the daughter was not a reason to hold their appointment as protectors invalid.

However, the Court did conclude that the appointments of the sons as protectors were invalid, for reasons which included the following:

  1. the "very significant" conflict of interest that exists between the sons and the daughter by reason of the US proceedings make it impossible for the sons to act fairly as protectors;
  2. the Court did not accept that the sons were acting in a "neutral and passive" way in the US proceedings;
  3. the sons have not shown themselves as acting independently from the father, for example simply signing documents when asked to do so by him even when such documents stripped the daughter of shares;
  4. the breakdown in relations between the daughter and the sons and the sons' demonstrable feelings of acrimony towards the daughter which makes it impossible for them to act fairly as protectors; and
  5. the background hostility and suspicion between the members of the family which would inevitably lead to a frequent involvement by the Court in the administration of the trusts.


The circumstances of the case may not have been as extreme as has been examined in other protector removal cases as Re The V R Family Trust 2009 JLR 202 (where the protector was engaged in litigation concerning the trust fund itself and therefore suffered with an extreme conflict of interest). The instant case, however, demonstrates how when the various circumstances of a matter are analysed in a comprehensive and forensic fashion it can lead to appointments being found to be invalid.

The case serves as an important reminder to appointors, whether trustees, protectors, or beneficiaries with a power of appointment, to consider their duties carefully when exercising fiduciary powers to ensure that they are acting reasonably, and in good faith, taking only into account relevant factors in making an appointment.

Advocate Fraser Robertson acted and appeared on behalf of the successful applicant beneficiary assisted by Amy Benest.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions