Jersey Judgment

In re Broere Trust v [2003] JLR 509 (10 September 2003)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court's decision on convening parties in trust proceedings depends on the party's connection to the trust, the likelihood of orders affecting them, and their status as necessary or proper parties under the relevant statutory and procedural rules.

Court disposition

Application for directions regarding convening parties considered.

02

Material facts

Parties

Broere Trust

Applicant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Trust Application for Directions / Application to Convene Parties

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether a party should be convened in trust proceedings under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47(2)(a)(iii) and Royal Court Rules, r.6/29(b)

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant seeks directions from the court regarding which parties should be convened in the trust proceedings, considering their connection to the trust and the necessity or propriety of their involvement.
Respondent
No respondent arguments are available from the provided text.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47(2)(a)(iii); Royal Court Rules, r.6/29(b)

    The court must consider (a) whether the party to be convened has a sufficient connection with the trust under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47(2)(a)(iii); (b) whether, even if there is a sufficient connection, it is likely to make an order concerning the party; and (c) whether the party is a necessary or proper party under either limb of Royal Court Rules, r.6/29(b).

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court's decision on convening parties in trust proceedings depends on the party's connection to the trust, the likelihood of orders affecting them, and their status as necessary or proper parties under the relevant statutory and procedural rules.

Court disposition

Application for directions regarding convening parties considered.

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.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2003] JLR 509

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [

DONATE ] Jersey Law Reports You are here:

BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Law Reports >> In re Broere Trust v [2003] JLR 509 (10 September 2003) URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2003/JLR030509.html Cite as: [2003] JLR 509 [ New search ] [ Help ] In re Broere Trust v 2003 JLR 509 (10 September 2003) Trusts-beneficiaries-application for directions-parties to be convened-court to consider (a) whether party to be convened has sufficient connection with trust under Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47(2)(a)(iii); (b) whether, even if sufficient connection, likely to make order concerning party; and (c) whether necessary or proper party under either limb of Royal Court Rules, r.6/29(b) 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: 2003 JLR 509 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/je/cases/JLR/2003/JLR030509.html

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, art. 47(2)(a)(iii)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Royal Court Rules, r.6/29(b)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.