Welcome to the section of our site where you may download our recent news items and publications or subscribe to our regular legal updates.
Practice area All Business - Banking Business - Brands Business - Commercial litigation & arbitration Business - Corporate Business - Corporate finance Business - Cultural assets & art Business - Employment Business - Funds, investments, tax & trusts Business - Hotels Business - Insolvency Business - IP, media & reputation management Business - Italy Business - Not-for-profit organizations Business - Real estate Business - Tax Personal - Cultural assets & art Personal - Divorce & family law Personal - Elder law Personal - Employment Personal - Family office & family business Personal - Italy Personal - Landed estates Personal - Litigation Personal - Philanthropy & charitable giving Personal - Probate & trust management Personal - Residential real estate Personal - Tax Personal - Trust & succession disputes Personal - Wealth structuring Personal - Wills & succession planning
Type of publication All Brochures Legal Updates and Articles News Newsletter
Published between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Keywords
Search
23 April 2008
The husband and wife were beneficiaries of a Jersey trust. The trustee had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English Court in divorce proceedings between them. The English Court held the trust was a post-nuptial settlement and made an order varying the Jersey trust pursuant to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 by appointing the sub-trust in the wife's favour. The trustees sought directions as to how to respond to the English order. The husband argued that the newly amended Article 9 (4) of the Jersey Trust Law made the English Order unenforceable and that the power of the Jersey Court to enforce the English order on the basis of comity had been removed by the amended Jersey legislation.
The Bailiff decided to enforce the English order. In reaching that conclusion the Court's function was to apply the law of Jersey, not English law. The Bailiff did not consider that Article 9 as amended had excluded the doctrine of comity. This could only have been done by clear and express words. All parties has had the opportunity to address the English Court and the trustee had submitted to the jurisdiction.
The Bailiff stated it would be better in such cases, if the English Court were to refrain from purporting to vary Jersey trusts. Instead, they could request the Jersey Court to be auxiliary to them. This would be similar to the approach adopted in insolvency matters. This would be a more appropriate approach between two friendly and civilised jurisdictions and would reduce the risk of the respective courts producing inconsistent judgments.
Patrick Hamlin
DD: +44 (0)20 7597 6140
Email me