In the matter of Caversham Trustees Limited [2008] JRC 065 (23 April 2008)

In the matter of Caversham Trustees Limited [2008] JRC 065 (23 April 2008)

The Caversham Trustees were largely responsible for the unacceptable delay in transferring the trust assets due to their unreasonable stance on indemnity extensions, delayed due diligence, improper insistence on retaining the entire trust fund as security for fees, and their practice of addressing matters consecutively. The Court determined that, acting reasonably, the transfers should have been completed within nine months of the commencement transfer date, by 31 March 2004.

Citation
[2008] JRC 065
Parties
Applicant: Berend Van Dalfsen; Trustee (bruce Trust) / Respondent: Andrew Crichton; Trustee (essel Trust) / Respondent: Caversham Trustees Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Trust Dispute / Determination of Preliminary Issue Regarding Delay in Transfer of Trust Assets
Outcome
Determination of the date by which the Caversham Trustees should have completed the transfer of trust assets; finding of unreasonable delay by the Caversham Trustees.
Legal Topics
Trustee Duties, Outgoing Trustee Obligations, Delay in Asset Transfer, Indemnity Provisions, Reasonable Security for Fees
Trusts and Estates Equity Trustee Duties Outgoing Trustee Obligations Delay in Asset Transfer Indemnity Provisions Reasonable Security for Fees

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berend Van Dalfsen

Applicant

Andrew Crichton

Trustee (bruce Trust) / Respondent

Caversham Trustees Limited

Trustee (essel Trust) / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trust Dispute / Determination of Preliminary Issue Regarding Delay in Transfer of Trust Assets

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable period within which outgoing trustees should have completed the transfer of trust assets?
  2. 2 Were the Caversham Trustees' actions in seeking extended indemnities and security for fees reasonable?
  3. 3 Did the conduct of the Caversham Trustees cause unacceptable delay in the transfer of trust assets?

Ratio Decidendi

The Caversham Trustees were largely responsible for the unacceptable delay in transferring the trust assets due to their unreasonable stance on indemnity extensions, delayed due diligence, improper insistence on retaining the entire trust fund as security for fees, and their practice of addressing matters consecutively. The Court determined that, acting reasonably, the transfers should have been completed within nine months of the commencement transfer date, by 31 March 2004.

Court Disposition

Determination of the date by which the Caversham Trustees should have completed the transfer of trust assets; finding of unreasonable delay by the Caversham Trustees.

Orders

  • The assets of both the Bruce Trust and the Essel Trust should have been transferred by the Caversham Trustees by 31 March 2004.