Trilogy Management -v- YT and Others [2013] JRC 147 (29 July 2013)

Trilogy Management -v- YT and Others [2013] JRC 147 (29 July 2013)

Mrs C is neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the relevant trusts, and the litigation is hostile in nature. The established legal principles do not support the grant of a pre-emptive costs order in such circumstances, except in truly exceptional cases where the only possible costs order at trial would be in the applicant's favour, which is not the case here. The court's discretion should not be exercised in favour of Mrs C, as the negative factors outweigh any exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2013] JRC 147
Parties
8th Respondent / Applicant: Mrs C; 1st Respondent / Trustee Company: YT Charitable Foundation (International) Limited; Representor / Applicant in Main Proceedings: Trilogy Management Limited; 2nd Respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney-General; 3rd Respondent: PC Sub-Trust; 4th Respondent: AC Sub-Trust; 5th Respondent: LC Sub-Trust; 6th Respondent: VC Sub-Trust; 7th Respondent: MC Sub-Trust
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
29 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Pre Emptive Costs Order / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial of Main Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Emptive Costs Orders, Beddoe Applications, Trustee Neutrality, Hostile Trust Litigation, Jurisdiction for Costs Orders
Trusts and Estates Charity Law Civil Procedure Pre Emptive Costs Orders Beddoe Applications Trustee Neutrality Hostile Trust Litigation Jurisdiction for Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs C

8th Respondent / Applicant

YT Charitable Foundation (International) Limited

1st Respondent / Trustee Company

Trilogy Management Limited

Representor / Applicant in Main Proceedings

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

2nd Respondent

PC Sub-Trust

3rd Respondent

AC Sub-Trust

4th Respondent

LC Sub-Trust

5th Respondent

VC Sub-Trust

6th Respondent

MC Sub-Trust

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Pre Emptive Costs Order / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial of Main Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs C, as a non-trustee and non-beneficiary, should be granted a pre-emptive costs order from the trust fund in ongoing hostile trust litigation
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant such an order in these circumstances
  3. 3 What principles govern the exercise of discretion for pre-emptive costs orders in trust litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs C is neither a trustee nor a beneficiary of the relevant trusts, and the litigation is hostile in nature. The established legal principles do not support the grant of a pre-emptive costs order in such circumstances, except in truly exceptional cases where the only possible costs order at trial would be in the applicant's favour, which is not the case here. The court's discretion should not be exercised in favour of Mrs C, as the negative factors outweigh any exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Mrs C's application for a pre-emptive costs order is refused.