The C Trust [2012] JRC 098 (14 May 2012)

The C Trust [2012] JRC 098 (14 May 2012)

The Court held that the established practice is to anonymise judgments to protect the privacy of family members involved with trusts, but it should not be extended further. Open justice requires publication of the judgment, with only such redaction as necessary to prevent identification of the grandchildren and protect family privacy. Further redaction to protect confidential trust information or to avoid embarrassment to trustees or protect family relationships is not justified. The interests of justice and public interest in the conduct of trustees outweigh the arguments for further redaction or non-publication.

Citation
[2012] JRC 098
Parties
Advocate for First and Second Respondents: Mr MacRae; Advocate for Fourth Respondent (the Widow): Mr James; Guardian Ad Litem for the Grandchildren: Mr Temple; Former Guardian Ad Litem, Not a Beneficiary: the mother
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Trust Litigation (hostile Proceedings Under Article 51 of the Trust (jersey) Law 1984) / Post Judgment Application Regarding Anonymisation and Redaction
Outcome
Application for further redaction or non-publication rejected.
Legal Topics
Anonymisation of Judgments, Confidentiality in Trust Proceedings, Open Justice, Publication of Judgments, Rectification of Trust Documents
Trust Law Family Law Anonymisation of Judgments Confidentiality in Trust Proceedings Open Justice Publication of Judgments Rectification of Trust Documents

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr MacRae

Advocate for First and Second Respondents

Mr James

Advocate for Fourth Respondent (the Widow)

Mr Temple

Guardian Ad Litem for the Grandchildren

the mother

Former Guardian Ad Litem, Not a Beneficiary

Procedural Posture

Trust Litigation (hostile Proceedings Under Article 51 of the Trust (jersey) Law 1984) / Post Judgment Application Regarding Anonymisation and Redaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment should be anonymised or redacted beyond protecting the identity of the grandchildren and family privacy
  2. 2 Whether the judgment should be withheld from publication to protect confidential trust information and family relationships

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the established practice is to anonymise judgments to protect the privacy of family members involved with trusts, but it should not be extended further. Open justice requires publication of the judgment, with only such redaction as necessary to prevent identification of the grandchildren and protect family privacy. Further redaction to protect confidential trust information or to avoid embarrassment to trustees or protect family relationships is not justified. The interests of justice and public interest in the conduct of trustees outweigh the arguments for further redaction or non-publication.

Court Disposition

Application for further redaction or non-publication rejected.

Orders

  • The judgment will be published in full, subject only to anonymisation necessary to protect the grandchildren from being identified and to protect the privacy of family members as per Re Sanne.