MM -v- SG Hambros [2010] JRC 037 (19 February 2010)

MM -v- SG Hambros [2010] JRC 037 (19 February 2010)

The Trustee's decision to sell the property was reasonable, given the lack of timely funding for refurbishment, the exceptionally good sale price, and the balance of interests between the life tenant and remainderman. The Court's role is supervisory and does not substitute its own discretion unless the trustee's decision is unreasonable, which was not the case here.

Citation
[2010] JRC 037
Parties
Applicant: Representor; Respondent: Trustee (first Respondent); Life Tenant: AM; Settlor: Madam H (settlor)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Trusts Application Under Article 51 of the Trusts (jersey) Law 1984 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Trustee Discretion, Sale of Trust Property, Life Tenant Vs Remainderman Interests, Supervisory Jurisdiction
Trusts Property Law Trustee Discretion Sale of Trust Property Life Tenant Vs Remainderman Interests Supervisory Jurisdiction

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Representor

Applicant

Trustee (first Respondent)

Respondent

AM

Life Tenant

Madam H (settlor)

Settlor

Procedural Posture

Trusts Application Under Article 51 of the Trusts (jersey) Law 1984 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trustee's decision to sell the trust property should be overturned
  2. 2 Whether the Trustee held a fair balance between the interests of the life tenant and the remainderman

Ratio Decidendi

The Trustee's decision to sell the property was reasonable, given the lack of timely funding for refurbishment, the exceptionally good sale price, and the balance of interests between the life tenant and remainderman. The Court's role is supervisory and does not substitute its own discretion unless the trustee's decision is unreasonable, which was not the case here.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Costs of the Trustee and AM to come out of the capital of the trust fund on the usual indemnity basis