Representation of Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited Re M Settlement 04-May-2021 [2021] JRC 130 (04 May 2021)

Representation of Hawksford Trustees Jersey Limited Re M Settlement 04-May-2021 [2021] JRC 130 (04 May 2021)

The Court held that while Article 47G provides a flexible remedy, it does not empower the Court to transform a sale into a gift by setting aside only the sale and loan back elements of a composite transaction while leaving the transfer of beneficial ownership in place. To do so would be to substitute a different...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] JRC 130
Parties
Applicant: Hawksford; Respondent: P Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Trust Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Transaction for Mistake
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Transactions for Mistake, Trustee Powers, Inheritance Tax, Partial Rescission
Trust Law Setting Aside Transactions for Mistake Trustee Powers Inheritance Tax Partial Rescission

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hawksford

Applicant

P Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trust Application / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Transaction for Mistake

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has power under Article 47G of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 to set aside part of a composite transaction entered into by a trustee on the grounds of mistake, specifically to set aside a sale and loan back while leaving a transfer of beneficial ownership in place.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while Article 47G provides a flexible remedy, it does not empower the Court to transform a sale into a gift by setting aside only the sale and loan back elements of a composite transaction while leaving the transfer of beneficial ownership in place. To do so would be to substitute a different transaction for that which was undertaken, which is not permitted.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • No declarations made; the Court refused to set aside only part of the transaction.