Bagus Invs. v Kastening [2010] JLR 355 (05 August 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] JLR 355
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory
More details
- Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The limitation period in art. 57(1) does not apply to claims for knowing receipt because such defendants are not trustees or class 1 constructive trustees within the meaning of the article.
Court disposition
interlocutory determination
02
Material facts
Parties
Bagus Investments
ApplicantKastening
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the limitation period under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 57(1) applies to claims for knowing receipt
- 02
Whether 'trustee' in art. 57(1) includes constructive trustees liable for knowing receipt
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the limitation period under art. 57(1) does not apply to claims for knowing receipt, as the respondent is not a trustee within the meaning of the article.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the limitation period should apply, asserting that persons liable for knowing receipt are constructive trustees and thus fall within the scope of art. 57(1).
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 57(1)
No prescription period for actions against trustees concerning fraud or to recover trust property under art. 57(1) of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984.
- 02
Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 57(1); equitable principles
'Trustee' in art. 57(1) may include class 1 constructive trustees (those assuming fiduciary obligations) but not class 2 (strangers liable in equity by dishonest act, e.g., knowing receipt).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The limitation period in art. 57(1) does not apply to claims for knowing receipt because such defendants are not trustees or class 1 constructive trustees within the meaning of the article.
Obiter and limits
- The distinction between class 1 and class 2 constructive trustees is relevant to the application of limitation periods under Jersey law.
Court disposition
interlocutory determination
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [
DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:
BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> Bagus Invs. v Kastening [2010] JLR 355 (05 August 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2010/JLR100355.html Cite as: [2010] JLR 355 [ New search ] [ Help ] Bagus Invs. v Kastening 2010 JLR 355 (05 August 2010) Trusts-constructive trusts-knowing receipt-Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 57(1), under which no prescription period for actions against trustees concerning fraud or to recover trust property, arguably not applicable to claim for knowing receipt-"trustee" in art. 57(1) may include class 1 constructive trustees (i.e. persons who assume fiduciary obligations over trust property) but not class 2 (i.e. strangers to trust liable in equity by dishonest act of interference, e.g. knowing receipt) The document you wish to view is available to registered users or can be purchased as a PDF. To purchase this document in PDF format or alternatively to Register to purchase membership go to the Jersey Law website via this link: 2010 JLR 355 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2010/JLR100355.html
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.