Mubarak v Mubarik [2008] JCA 196 (19 November 2008)

Mubarak v Mubarik [2008] JCA 196 (19 November 2008)

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant's conduct, while questionable, did not amount to abuse of process sufficient to bar him from appeal. The Royal Court had jurisdiction under Article 47 to approve the variation of the trust for the benefit of minor and unascertained beneficiaries, given the consent of adult beneficiaries and the Appellant's 2006 letter. The English High Court order could not be enforced directly in Jersey, but the Royal Court could approve a variation under its own law. The removal of the trustee and appointment of receivers was within the court's powers under Article 51.

Citation
[2008] JCA 196
Parties
First Respondent/representor: Aaliya Mubarak; Appellant/first Respondent: Iqbal Mubarik; Second Respondent: The Craven Trust Company Limited; Third Respondent: Salem Mubarak and Noor Mubarak; Fourth Respondent: Advocate M. P. Renouf (guardian ad litem of Osman Mubarak and Hamza Mubarak and representative of unborn/unascertained beneficiaries)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; orders of Royal Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Variation of Trusts, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Trustee Removal, Beneficiary Rights, Abuse of Process
Trusts Family Law Private International Law Variation of Trusts Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Trustee Removal Beneficiary Rights Abuse of Process

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaliya Mubarak

First Respondent/representor

Iqbal Mubarik

Appellant/first Respondent

The Craven Trust Company Limited

Second Respondent

Salem Mubarak and Noor Mubarak

Third Respondent

Advocate M. P. Renouf (guardian ad litem of Osman Mubarak and Hamza Mubarak and representative of unborn/unascertained beneficiaries)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the Royal Court had jurisdiction to vary the trust under Article 47 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant consented to the variation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Appellant's conduct, while questionable, did not amount to abuse of process sufficient to bar him from appeal. The Royal Court had jurisdiction under Article 47 to approve the variation of the trust for the benefit of minor and unascertained beneficiaries, given the consent of adult beneficiaries and the Appellant's 2006 letter. The English High Court order could not be enforced directly in Jersey, but the Royal Court could approve a variation under its own law. The removal of the trustee and appointment of receivers was within the court's powers under Article 51.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; orders of Royal Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Variation of IMK Family Trust approved under Article 47 for benefit of First Respondent and minor/unascertained beneficiaries.
  • Second Respondent removed as trustee; receivers appointed under Article 51.