Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati v BV Trustco Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 1410 (Ch) (25 May 2012)

Ambra Borgognoni Vimercati v BV Trustco Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 1410 (Ch) (25 May 2012)

The court found no basis in the trust instrument or law for joint instructions, mandatory representations, or disclosure prior to expert determination. The procedure for expert determination is for the Trustees and the expert, not the court. No error was found in the Trustees' proposed approach, and there was no real, non-hypothetical dispute requiring court intervention.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1410 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Ambra Vimercati; Defendant: The Trustees (First and Second Defendants); Third Defendant: Gianbenso Vimercati; Fourth Defendant: Rosalinde Vimercati; Fifth Defendant: Leonardo Vimercati
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (civil Trust Dispute) / Judgment After Trial of Part 8 Proceedings
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Trustee Duties, Disclosure, Interpretation of Trust Instruments
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Expert Determination Trustee Duties 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ambra Vimercati

Claimant

The Trustees (First and Second Defendants)

Defendant

Gianbenso Vimercati

Third Defendant

Rosalinde Vimercati

Fourth Defendant

Leonardo Vimercati

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (civil Trust Dispute) / Judgment After Trial of Part 8 Proceedings

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 Interpretation of the expert determination clause in the 2011 Appointment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no basis in the trust instrument or law for joint instructions, mandatory representations, or disclosure prior to expert determination. The procedure for expert determination is for the Trustees and the expert, not the court. No error was found in the Trustees' proposed approach, and there was no real, non-hypothetical dispute requiring court intervention.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed