Hirschfield v Abacus [2001] JRC 40 (14 February 2001)

Hirschfield v Abacus [2001] JRC 40 (14 February 2001)

The additional documents relied on by the Representor do not provide significant support for the assertion that the Jersey Settlement was a sham or that the Trustee was complicit. Most material was already available, and the amendments would introduce new, serious allegations without sufficient basis, causing delay and potential prejudice. There is no uncertainty as to the class of beneficiaries, so the amendment on uncertainty of objects also fails.

Citation
[2001] JRC 40
Parties
Applicant: Representor; Respondent: First Respondent (Trustee); Respondent: Third Respondent; Respondent: Fourth Respondent
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Representation (trusts) / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings Prior to Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend refused
Legal Topics
Sham Trusts, Uncertainty of Objects, Amendment of Pleadings, Costs, Discovery
Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Sham Trusts Uncertainty of Objects Amendment of Pleadings Costs Discovery

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Representor

Applicant

First Respondent (Trustee)

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representation (trusts) / Application for Leave to Amend Pleadings Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Representation to plead that the Jersey Settlement was a sham
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to amend the Representation to plead that the Jersey Settlement was void for uncertainty of objects

Ratio Decidendi

The additional documents relied on by the Representor do not provide significant support for the assertion that the Jersey Settlement was a sham or that the Trustee was complicit. Most material was already available, and the amendments would introduce new, serious allegations without sufficient basis, causing delay and potential prejudice. There is no uncertainty as to the class of beneficiaries, so the amendment on uncertainty of objects also fails.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend refused

Orders

  • Leave to amend to plead sham allegation refused
  • Leave to amend to plead uncertainty of objects refused