Jersey: A Sting In The Tail: The Latest Instalment From The Crociani Litigation

Last Updated: 16 July 2018
Article by Damian Evans and Robert Dobbyn


Although the substantive judgment in the Crociani litigation was handed down on 11 September last year1, that vine still had some fruit to bear. In particular, two of the inquiries ordered by that judgment have now been decided in a subsequent judgment, which is the subject matter of this note2. This subsequent judgment is particularly illuminative of the approach taken by the Royal Court when assessing liability of trustees for the loss of growth in the value of trust assets that were paid away in breach of trust.


The Crociani litigation is relatively complex and has yielded useful judicial commentary on a number of issues, ranging from electronic discovery to the interpretation of forum and jurisdiction clauses. But for the present purposes, the history can be summarised as follows:

  1. the Grand Trust was established by the settlor, Edoarda Crociani, principally for the benefit of her two daughters;
  2. the Grand Trust was, during the relevant period, a Jersey law trust;
  3. in 2010, the then-trustee, at the instigation of the settlor, made an appointment from the trust to another trust;
  4. this appointment extended to an investment portfolio of significant value together with the benefit of certain loans;
  5. one of the two daughters, Cristiana Crociani, successfully established that the appointment was an improper attempt to deprive her of potential benefit from the appointed assets; and
  6. as a result, the substantive judgment in 2017 ordered the then-trustee and the settlor to restore the trust fund (or rather, a sub-trust established for Cristiana's benefit) commensurate with the value of the appointed assets.

Purpose of the inquiries

Two inquiries were ordered as part of the substantive judgment in order to help quantify exactly what value needed to be restored to the trust fund.

Firstly, the investment portfolio that had previously formed part of the Grand Trust's assets had been valued at $100,347,046 as at 16 May 2011, which was the date it was paid away to the other trust. As one would expect, therefore, that sum was payable by the settlor and the then-trustee to the current trustee. So far, so good. But what about any increase in value that should have occurred between 16 May 2011 and 11 September 2017 when judgment was handed down? It was agreed by the parties as a matter of principle that the settlor and the then-trustee would have to make good on this too. However, it was not agreed what that loss of growth actually amounted to in dollars and cents. Hence the need for the first of the inquiries.

The second inquiry related to the benefit of certain interest-free loans that had also formed part of the 2010 appointment. It had not been clear previously to what extent the relevant debtor entities, which were associated with the settlor, were solvent at the time of the appointment, and therefore to what extent those loans could actually have been recovered. Investigating this issue would allow the Royal Court to reach the value that the settlor and the then-trustee would now be expected to restore to the trust fund.

The first inquiry: loss of growth following the payment out of the investment portfolio

The parties had not previously been able to agree a sum reflective of the loss of growth, principally because they had instructed different types of expert evidence on the basis of different mandates. While the court found both experts to be credible and worthy, their conclusions differed radically. Indeed each expert considered more than one methodology himself.

In assessing these different methodologies, the court noted a fundamental point, which was not disputed by the parties: it should be assumed for the purposes of the calculations that trustees would perform all their duties. Whether or not a particular trustee would actually have done so is irrelevant for these purposes. So the aim of the exercise is to compare, firstly, what actually happened with the trust assets with, secondly, what ought to have happened to them had they not been paid away - not with what would have happened to them had they not been paid away.

Furthermore, the court added, the calculations should be carried out on the basis that, where there are a number of realistic possible outcomes, the presumption would be that the assets would have been used in the way that would be most beneficial to the claimant beneficiary.

The then-trustee's expert's calculations

The then-trustee's expert was a forensic accountant. He was first tasked by the then-trustee with providing a calculation on the basis that the assets in the portfolio were effectively frozen as at the date they were paid away in 2011, with no active management taking place between 2011 and 2017. The process was therefore one of tracking the relevant investments' performance over the period, resulting in a meagre growth in value of $2,000,000 or thereabouts over the period.

This "objective" approach was quickly dismissed by the court. Leaving a portfolio unmanaged over the period would be completely inconsistent with the duties of a prudent trustee and so the projected returns of such an approach were of no relevance.

The second calculation the then-trustee's expert was asked to carry out was to ascertain the increase in growth in the portfolio that would have resulted from the investments being managed in a manner consistent with how they had been managed prior to the transfer out of the trust. In other words, he was asked to identify the prior investment strategy and then extrapolate its performance into the years between 2011 and 2017. This approach yielded a larger increase, although still unimpressive in percentage terms, of just over $7,000,000.

However, this "subjective" approach ran into "insurmountable difficulties", the court held, given that the settlor was effectively the investment manager. She displayed no consistent pattern of behaviour, as the expert pointed out. Sometimes she would take professional advice; sometimes she would make decisions based on hard-to-ascertain or emotional motives. As a result, this led to considerable uncertainty when trying to work out the likely composition of the portfolio post-2011. Furthermore, the court pointed out, the expert's calculations, of necessity, had assumed that there was no asset-currency reallocation. Since there had actually been a certain amount of reallocation prior to 2011, the subjective approach did not in fact achieve its purpose of showing how the assets would have been invested after 2011. Finally, although the court did not say so expressly in this section of the judgment, this approach would appear to be defective on the grounds that it did not seek to calculate what ought to have happened with the investments after 2011, which, as mentioned above, was the better prism through which the Royal Court wished to determine the matter.

Cristiana's expert's calculations

Cristiana's expert was not a forensic accountant but rather someone who was well-versed in trustee investment management. He preferred to focus on how the investments ought to have performed, but using peer groups rather than benchmarks. This was on the basis that it was rare for investment managers to match or exceed benchmark returns in practice. Thus he relied on a weighted calculation of returns of the investment industry following an appropriate risk profile.

In his view, it was difficult to speculate on how the settlor would have managed the portfolio, but a prudent trustee would have appointed a professional adviser who would have taken a more aggressive approach than had been the case previously, given that the principal beneficiaries of the Grand Trust were relatively young and would normally be expected to tolerate more volatility than would someone of their mother's age. Furthermore, given the size of the investment portfolio, the expert's view was that a trustee in this situation would expect to have access to the best advisers at the best rates.

Taking that all into account, he suggested that it would be expected for the performance then to end up sitting on the border of the first and second quartiles of a moderate-risk peer group, resulting in a return of 31% over the six year period.

The court agreed with this approach entirely, focusing as it did on the results that could be expected from a prudent trustee taking appropriate advice and adopting a moderate-risk approach. The expert's calculated figure of $31,107,584 was the one the court therefore ordered that the settlor and the then-trustee pay into Cristiana's trust to reflect the loss of growth in value of the investments, together with interest from the date of the substantive judgment until payment.

The second inquiry: recoverability of loans

The court dealt with this issue briskly, again endorsing the view of Cristiana's expert for these purposes (an accountant), who had concluded that certain of the debtor entities had been solvent but not the others.

The then-trustee sought to establish that none of the loans had ever been intended to be called in, and that ultimately they would all have been written off so they should not be treated as being recoverable. But the court appeared not to be swayed by that, dismissing the matter of the future treatment of the loans as a matter of speculation.

The court therefore held that two of the loans had been properly recoverable at the time of the appointment in 2010, and the settlor and the then-trustee were, as a result, ordered to pay the full values of those loans over to the current trustee, again with interest accruing for the period from the date of the substantive judgment until actual payment.


This is a good illustration of how a trustee's liability for breach of trust can extend not only to the value of any assets improperly appointed out, but also to any loss of growth that follows. Calculation of that loss is measured objectively by reference to the high standards of a prudent trustee, with a higher standard still applying where the actual trustee in question is a professional. Furthermore, the claimant beneficiary will get the benefit of the doubt where there is more than one realistic outcome to the calculation.

It makes sense that this objective approach prevails. Otherwise, the effect would be to allow shoddy trustees to be judged by their own slapdash standards rather than by the standards of their better-managed competitors. Theoretically, this could result in a trust fund being restored to a better financial position than would be the case for an equivalent trust fund where no improper appointment had been made and the assets merely managed somewhat sub-optimally (but not so badly as to constitute an actionable failure).


1 Crociani v Crociani [2017] JRC 146

2 Crociani v Crociani [2018] JRC 091A

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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