Trigwell -v- Clapp [2018] JCA 018 (23 January 2018)

Trigwell -v- Clapp [2018] JCA 018 (23 January 2018)

The Court found that Astral Enterprises Limited was established by Mr Clapp for the benefit of his family through the OEEA Trust, and that Mr Harrod was never the beneficial owner of the company. There was no evidence of a transfer of beneficial ownership from the Clapp family or the OEEA Trust to Mr Harrod in 2005...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] JCA 018
Parties
Appellant: Mr Harrod; Respondent: Mr Clapp
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Beneficial Ownership, Share Transfers, Declarations of Trust, Company Restoration, Limitation Periods
Company Law Trust Law Beneficial Ownership Share Transfers Declarations of Trust Company Restoration Limitation Periods

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

Parties

Mr Harrod

Appellant

Mr Clapp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Harrod was ever the beneficial owner of Astral Enterprises Limited
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid transfer of beneficial ownership from the OEEA Trust (Clapp family) to Mr Harrod in or after 2005
  3. 3 Whether the Royal Court erred in its findings of fact regarding beneficial ownership

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Astral Enterprises Limited was established by Mr Clapp for the benefit of his family through the OEEA Trust, and that Mr Harrod was never the beneficial owner of the company. There was no evidence of a transfer of beneficial ownership from the Clapp family or the OEEA Trust to Mr Harrod in 2005 or at any other time. The declarations of trust in favour of Mr Harrod were incorrect and of no effect. The findings of the Royal Court were not plainly wrong and there was no procedural unfairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.