In the matter of the G Family Trust [2012] JRC 234A (17 December 2012)

In the matter of the G Family Trust [2012] JRC 234A (17 December 2012)

The Court held that Hawksford's decisions to sell the trust's principal asset and distribute the net proceeds among the beneficiaries, as proposed, were rational, lawful, and within its powers after thorough consultation and consideration of all relevant factors. The Court declined to bless the creation of a grandchildren's fund as irrational and impractical. The trustee cannot exercise powers requiring protector consent without a protector in office; a variation to remove the protector requirement is appropriate in these circumstances. The Court recommended further steps to ensure the father's interests are independently protected in the distribution process.

Citation
[2012] JRC 234A
Parties
Applicant/representor (trustee): Hawksford; First Respondent (curator of B, Beneficiary): A (the mother); Second Respondent (settlor/beneficiary, Under Curatorship): B (the father); Beneficiary: First son; Beneficiary: Second son; Beneficiary: Third son; Beneficiary: Fourth son; Beneficiaries: Minor and unborn beneficiaries (grandchildren)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Trustee Application for Directions/blessing (representation) / Final Judgment on Trustee's Application for Blessing of Momentous Decisions
Outcome
Application granted in part; trustee's decisions to sell and distribute blessed, grandchildren's fund not blessed.
Legal Topics
Trustee Powers, Court Blessing of Trustee Decisions, Protector Role in Trusts, Distribution of Trust Assets, Curatorship, Variation of Trusts
Trusts Equity Private Client Trustee Powers Court Blessing of Trustee Decisions Protector Role in Trusts Distribution of Trust Assets Curatorship +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawksford

Applicant/representor (trustee)

A (the mother)

First Respondent (curator of B, Beneficiary)

B (the father)

Second Respondent (settlor/beneficiary, Under Curatorship)

First son

Beneficiary

Second son

Beneficiary

Third son

Beneficiary

Fourth son

Beneficiary

Minor and unborn beneficiaries (grandchildren)

Beneficiaries

Procedural Posture

Trustee Application for Directions/blessing (representation) / Final Judgment on Trustee's Application for Blessing of Momentous Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustee's decision to sell the trust's principal asset and distribute proceeds should be blessed by the Court
  2. 2 Whether the proposed division of proceeds among beneficiaries is a proper exercise of discretion
  3. 3 Whether a fund for grandchildren is a rational and proper exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Hawksford's decisions to sell the trust's principal asset and distribute the net proceeds among the beneficiaries, as proposed, were rational, lawful, and within its powers after thorough consultation and consideration of all relevant factors. The Court declined to bless the creation of a grandchildren's fund as irrational and impractical. The trustee cannot exercise powers requiring protector consent without a protector in office; a variation to remove the protector requirement is appropriate in these circumstances. The Court recommended further steps to ensure the father's interests are independently protected in the distribution process.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; trustee's decisions to sell and distribute blessed, grandchildren's fund not blessed.

Orders

  • Blessing of trustee's decision to sell the commercial property at best achievable price.
  • Blessing of trustee's decision to distribute net proceeds among beneficiaries as proposed, subject to variation regarding protector consent.