1998/112 - Chase Bank and Trust Company re Graystone Trust [1998] UR 112 (2 June 1998)

1998/112 - Chase Bank and Trust Company re Graystone Trust [1998] UR 112 (2 June 1998)

The court ordered rectification because the deed did not accurately record the settlor's true intention, there was sufficient evidence of error, no disagreement from beneficiaries, and no fiscal implications.

Citation
[1998] UR 112
Parties
Settlor: Giles Leon Richard Desbrow; Original Trustee: Chase Bank CI Trust Company; Beneficiary (wife, Contingent Interest): Evelyn Desbrow; Beneficiary (daughter, Minor): Alexandra Desbrow; Beneficiary (son, Minor): Mark Desbrow; Beneficiary (mother, Deceased): Rosetta Desbrow; Potential Beneficiary (not Named in Deed): Robert Rau
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 June 1998
Procedural Posture
Application to Rectify Deed of Settlement / Judgment on Rectification Application
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Rectification of Trust Deed, Beneficiary Designation, Discretionary Power of Court
Trusts Equity Rectification of Trust Deed Beneficiary Designation Discretionary Power of Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giles Leon Richard Desbrow

Settlor

Chase Bank CI Trust Company

Original Trustee

Evelyn Desbrow

Beneficiary (wife, Contingent Interest)

Alexandra Desbrow

Beneficiary (daughter, Minor)

Mark Desbrow

Beneficiary (son, Minor)

Rosetta Desbrow

Beneficiary (mother, Deceased)

Robert Rau

Potential Beneficiary (not Named in Deed)

Procedural Posture

Application to Rectify Deed of Settlement / Judgment on Rectification Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of settlement should be rectified to include Robert Rau as a beneficiary
  2. 2 Whether the deed accurately records the settlor's true intention

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered rectification because the deed did not accurately record the settlor's true intention, there was sufficient evidence of error, no disagreement from beneficiaries, and no fiscal implications.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Rectification of the deed of settlement retrospectively to the date of original execution