Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati v BV Trustco Ltd & Ors

Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati v BV Trustco Ltd & Ors

The court will not interfere with the expert determination process agreed by the parties unless there is a real, non-hypothetical dispute as to the expert's jurisdiction or mandate. The 2011 Appointment clause does not provide for joint instructions, mandatory representations, or disclosure at this stage. The Trustees' proposed procedure is consistent with the trust instrument and the law.

Parties
Claimant: Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati; First Defendant: BV Trustco Limited; Second Defendant: Janet Lucy Gibson; Third Defendant: Gianbenso Borgognoni Vimercati; Fourth Defendant: Rosalinde Socrate; Fifth Defendant: Leonardo Borgognoni Vimercati
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Judgment After Hearing on Procedural and Interpretive Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Trustee Powers, Disclosure, Interpretation of Trust Instruments
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Expert Determination Trustee Powers Disclosure Interpretation of Trust Instruments

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati

Claimant

BV Trustco Limited

First Defendant

Janet Lucy Gibson

Second Defendant

Gianbenso Borgognoni Vimercati

Third Defendant

Rosalinde Socrate

Fourth Defendant

Leonardo Borgognoni Vimercati

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (trusts) / Judgment After Hearing on Procedural and Interpretive Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should intervene in the process of expert determination under a trust instrument
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to joint instructions to the expert, make representations, or obtain disclosure prior to expert determination
  3. 3 Proper construction of the expert determination clause in the 2011 Appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The court will not interfere with the expert determination process agreed by the parties unless there is a real, non-hypothetical dispute as to the expert's jurisdiction or mandate. The 2011 Appointment clause does not provide for joint instructions, mandatory representations, or disclosure at this stage. The Trustees' proposed procedure is consistent with the trust instrument and the law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed