The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon
MIDLAND CHAMBERS, 2-10 LIBRARY PLACE, ST HELIER, JE1 2BP, JERSEY
Tel:
Work 01534 766254
Fax:
Fax 01534 737355
Email:
Web:
www.bakerandpartners.com

Show all Press releases

Baker & Partners Return Trusteeship to Jersey in Contentious Trust Case

November 2015

Stephen Baker, Simon Thomas and James Sheedy of Baker & Partners have secured a significant victory for the beneficiary in the case of Dick-Stock v PanTrust International SA, Wigley & Wigley 2015 JRC 223, with the Jersey Royal Court accepting jurisdiction to remove and replace the Panama-based trustees. Two trusts in question will now be transferred to Jersey-based G.B. Trustees by court order.

The trusts were originally established in Jersey in the late 1970s and administered from the mid-1980s by Jersey corporate trustee La Hougue Böete, run by Richard Wigley. In 2007 Richard Wigley uprooted the administration of the trusts to Panama under a new trustee he established, PanTrust, and the proper law of the trusts was ostensibly changed from that of Jersey to Panama under two Deeds of Appointment and Retirement of Trustees (“the 2007 DORAs”).

Following an investigation by the Panamanian authorities in 2013 and 2014, PanTrust was banned by the Panamanian regulator (the Superintendence of Banks) from conducting trust business from February 2015. The two directors of PanTrust, Richard Wigley and his son James Wigley, then purported to transfer trusteeship from PanTrust to themselves without the consent of either the Settlor or the beneficiaries, contrary to the order of the Superintendence of Banks.

Following these developments, the Settlor’s daughter, Tanya Dick-Stock, commenced proceedings to remove PanTrust and replace them with a regulated Jersey trustee. PanTrust, contended that provisions in the trust deeds and the 2007 DORAs amounted to exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of Panama. However, the Royal Court disagreed and held it had jurisdiction over the trusts under Article 5(c) Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, as they held Jersey companies that held Jersey immovable property in St Helier and the parish of St John. Based on the documentary evidence and expert foreign law evidence before it, the court also deemed the beneficiary had ‘the better of the argument’ that the 2007 DORAs failed to properly change the trusts’ proper law from Jersey to Panama giving rise to the possibility that the trusts were still Jersey law trusts, over which the court had jurisdiction under Article 5(a) Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984.

The respondents denied that the true nature of the legal relationships was that of discretionary trusts, instead asserting that the family in question was perpetrating a fraud and the trusts were in fact shams. The Court was unmoved by that argument and proceeded to assume jurisdiction and order the expedited removal of PanTrust. The trusts were presumed valid until proved conclusively to be shams.

The Court ruled that the position of the respondents continuing to be trustees was untenable, not least because they denied the trusts were trusts at all. GB Trustees have been authorised to change the proper law of the Trusts back to that of Jersey law.

James Sheedy, Associate at Baker & Partners, commented:

“We are very pleased with the Royal Court’s decision. The case will be of comfort to beneficiaries of Jersey trusts, as it demonstrates that where there are exceptional circumstances, the Jersey court can and will exercise its supervisory jurisdiction (and quickly) to intervene and protect the interests of beneficiaries and trust property.”

Legal Developments by:
Baker & Partners

Legal Developments in Jersey

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Modernisation of Jersey’s pensions law

    Modernisation of Jersey’s pensions law
  • Jersey Opens the door to QROP’s

    Jersey opens the door to QROPs
  • Jersey Legislation Overview

    Jersey Legislation Overview
  • Civil Liability for Breaches of the Codes

    Civil Liability for Breaches of the Codes
  • AML Update: Review of 2014 amendments to the substantive offences

    AML Update: Review of 2014 amendments to the substantive offences under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 
  • The New Charities Law - a bright new dawn

    As of Friday 21 November 2014, the new Charities (Jersey) Law 2014 (the " Law ") (or at least certain parts of it) came into effect.  This represents a quantum leap forward for Jersey in the charity field.  The Law has introduced a new test for what is charitable (the " Charity Test "), has introduced the post of a Charity Commissioner and a Charity Tribunal, and in time will introduce standards that those who run charities in the Island will have to abide by.  It is hoped that the Law will enable the Island to flourish as a centre for the administration of charitable and philanthropic structures.
  • New Managed Account Regime for Jersey Hedge Fund Managers

    An exemption which will enable Jersey-regulated fund managers to be appointed in relation to managed accounts has now been introduced.  This will enable hedge fund managers that are already regulated under the Financial Services (Jersey) Law (FS Law) in Jersey to carry out fund services business (FSB) to also service qualifying segregated managed accounts (QSMAs) without the need to seek additional regulation for the conduct of investment business under the FS Law.
  • The Security Interests (Jersey) Law 2012: Changes to Jersey's security regime

    On 2 January 2014, the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 2012 came into force in respect of Jersey law security over intangible movable property (e.g. shares/securities, bank accounts and custody assets).  The new law replaces the Security Interests (Jersey) Law 1983 (which was in force for the last three decades) and introduces a number of important changes which modernise Jersey's security regime.
  • Exclusive and Inherent Jurisdictions: to boldly go where no Court has gone before?

    On 26 November 2014, the Privy Council delivered judgment in the long-running case of Crociani & Others v. Crociani & Others [2014] UKPC 40 .  The case is of interest to trustees because it provides conclusive and binding guidance on the treatment of exclusive jurisdiction clauses in trust deeds.  However, it also raises questions as to the fundamental nature of the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Royal Court in connection with trust matters, and whether it is in fact broader than previously thought.
  • Accessing EU Institutional investor capital

    Luxembourg is one of the largest global investment fund domiciles, benefiting from the following factors: