The Trusts (Amendment No. 4) (Jersey) Law 2006
INTRODUCTION
The Trusts (Amendment No.4) (Jersey) Law 2006 (the
"Amendment Law") came into force on 27 October 2006.
The Amendment Law makes a number of changes to Jersey's
existing law on trusts, the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (the
"Trusts Law"). The purpose of this memorandum is to
summarise those changes.
References to articles in this memorandum are references to
articles in the Trusts Law.
ARTICLE 9 - EXTENT OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF JERSEY
TO THE CREATION OF TRUSTS ETC.
The old Article 9 provided some protection for a Jersey
trust against claims seeking to challenge the validity of the
trust itself or the validity of the transfer of assets into the
trust. However, it was thought that some offshore jurisdictions
had stolen a march on Jersey by introducing much tougher
protection for their trusts. The new Article 9 is intended to
strengthen Jersey's provisions in order to bring it into
line with those other offshore jurisdictions and provide
comprehensive protection against attacks on Jersey trusts based
on foreign law principles.
The validity or interpretation of a Jersey trust, the
validity or effect of any transfer or disposition of property
to a trust, the capacity of the settlor, the administration of
a Jersey trust and the existence or extent of powers under such
a trust are now determined solely in accordance with Jersey
domestic law (excluding, in the case of a settlor who is not
domiciled in Jersey, légitime and Jersey's
conflicts of law rules). As before, donner et retenir ne
vaut continues to be disapplied.
In addition, a new paragraph (4) provides that, to the
extent that a foreign judgment is inconsistent with the
provisions of the amended Article 9, that foreign judgment
shall not be capable of being enforced. This has become
significant in the case of attacks on Jersey trusts made by
spouses in matrimonial proceedings in other jurisdictions.
NEW ARTICLE 9A - POWERS RESERVED BY THE SETTLOR
A settlor sometimes seeks to retain certain powers under the
terms of a trust rather than confer them on the trustee. He may
also decide to confer powers on someone other than the trustee,
for example, a protector. However, if a settlor reserves too
many powers, it might be argued by third parties that the trust
is a sham. For example, although on the face of the trust
instrument a trust may be called a discretionary trust, if too
many powers are reserved it could be argued that, in reality,
it is a bare trust or nomineeship.
In addition, if powers were reserved by the settlor or
conferred on someone else the question sometimes arose as to
whether the trustee should go along with such powers if he
thought they were being exercised in a way which was not in the
best interests of the beneficiaries. For example, the settlor
might, in accordance with a power reserved to him under the
terms of the trust, direct the trustee to purchase certain
investments which the trustee might think unwise. The trustee
is subject to certain overriding duties and, to comply with the
settlor's direction in such circumstances, might result in
the trustee being in breach of those duties. Essentially the
question boiled down to which took precedence, the
settlor's direction or the trustee's overriding duties
which might require him to ignore the direction, in spite of
his obligation under Article 21 to carry out and administer the
trust in accordance with its terms.
The Amendment Law deals with these issues. The new Article
9A sets out for the avoidance of doubt the powers which may be
reserved by the settlor or granted to someone other than the
trustee without the validity of the trust being affected. These
include:
The power to revoke, vary or amend the terms of the
trust;
The power to advance, pay or apply trust property;
The power to direct the trustee to advance, pay or apply
trust property; and
The power to give binding directions to the trustee in
connection with the purchase, retention, sale and management
of trust property.
Where such a power has been reserved by the settlor or
granted to someone else, a trustee who acts in accordance with
the exercise of the power will not be acting in breach of
trust. For example, if the settlor, in accordance with the
terms of the trust, directs the trustee to invest the trust
fund in a certain way, the trustee will not be liable for
breach of trust in relation to that investment decision.
However, the trustee could be liable for breach of trust in
relation to the execution of that direction if he...
To continue reading
Request your trial