Forester Maurice Labrouche v Frey & Ors

Forester Maurice Labrouche v Frey & Ors

The Founder’s Rights or Claim Rights in Newin Establishment did not fall into Olga’s estate or the will trusts; the arrangement between Olga and Hugo before her death was that Newin would be kept separate and administered for its own beneficiaries, and any right to revoke instructions did not pass to her executors. The trustees did not breach their duties in relation to the administration, conversion, or distributions from Newin. The 1983 Resolution did not create an express trust. Trustee remuneration and retrocessions were authorised and reasonable. Tracing into Newin Foundation’s assets is not available as there was no transactional link. The Zurich proceedings do not create an issue...

Parties
Claimant: Forester Maurice Labrouche; 1st Defendant: Markus Albert Frey; 2nd Defendant: The Estate of Hugo Albert Frey; 3rd Defendant: Soledad Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton; 4th Defendant: Newin Foundation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (trusts/probate) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for limited breach regarding Plum Bay House proceeds; no substantial relief granted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Trust, Constructive Trust, Tracing, Trustee Remuneration, Retrocessions, Mandate/fiduciary Agreements, Inheritance Tax, Issue Estoppel, Trustee Duties, Will Interpretation
Trusts and Estates Private International Law Equity Breach of Trust Constructive Trust Tracing Trustee Remuneration Retrocessions +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forester Maurice Labrouche

Claimant

Markus Albert Frey

1st Defendant

The Estate of Hugo Albert Frey

2nd Defendant

Soledad Cabeza de Vaca y Leighton

3rd Defendant

Newin Foundation

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (trusts/probate) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Founder’s Rights or Claim Rights in Newin Establishment formed part of Olga’s estate and were subject to the will trusts
  2. 2 Whether the trustees breached their duties in relation to the administration, conversion, and distributions from Newin Establishment/Foundation
  3. 3 Whether trustee remuneration and retrocessions were properly charged and accounted for

Ratio Decidendi

The Founder’s Rights or Claim Rights in Newin Establishment did not fall into Olga’s estate or the will trusts; the arrangement between Olga and Hugo before her death was that Newin would be kept separate and administered for its own beneficiaries, and any right to revoke instructions did not pass to her executors. The trustees did not breach their duties in relation to the administration, conversion, or distributions from Newin. The 1983 Resolution did not create an express trust. Trustee remuneration and retrocessions were authorised and reasonable. Tracing into Newin Foundation’s assets is not available as there was no transactional link. The Zurich proceedings do not create an issue...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for limited breach regarding Plum Bay House proceeds; no substantial relief granted.

Orders

  • Claim for declaration that Founder’s Rights/Claim Rights formed part of Olga’s estate dismissed.
  • Claim for breach of trust in relation to Newin conversion and distributions dismissed.