Isle of Man: The Sins Of The Father – Yearwood v Yearwood

Last Updated: 2 August 2012
Article by Kevin O'Loughlin

It is becoming increasingly common for parties to matrimonial litigation to seek cross border recognition and/or enforcement of financial orders. An indication of the inclination of the Isle of Man courts to seek to give effect to English ancillary relief orders is given by Yearwood v Yearwood (judgment of Deemster Corlett delivered 10 March 2011).

Mr and Mrs Yearwood were divorced by the Family Division of the English High Court, and Deemster Corlett at the start of his judgment referred to the English Court's criticism of Mr Yearwood's "wholesale disregard" for the English proceedings.

Mr Yearwood had invested in a policy (the "policy") issued by an Isle of Man insurance company which had a value of approximately £1 million. The policy was held in trust, the trustees being Mr and Mrs Yearwood, on terms that during the lifetime of the Settlor (Mr Yearwood) the trustees were to apply the trust fund for the benefit of Mr Yearwood as he may direct (the "power of direction") and after his death for the benefit of his son.

Although the judgment does not say, it appears that the trust was governed by Isle of Man law. The English High court ordered (the "English Order") ancillary relief of a lump sum of approximately £4 million in favour of Mrs Yearwood, to be paid by not later than 21st December 2009; paragraph 2 of the English Order provided that in default of compliance (as was the case) the trust be varied to remove Mr Yearwood as trustee and to substitute Mrs Yearwood in respect of all Mr Yearwood's rights and powers under the trust.

Mrs Yearwood applied in the Isle of Man for judgment and execution in respect of the lump sum, and sought a final Charging Order and Disposal Order in respect of Mr Yearwood's alleged beneficial interest in the policy for the purpose of satisfying the judgment debt. The son objected.

The validity of the trust was not in issue before the Isle of Man High Court. The relevant legislation gave the High Court power to make a charging order on any interest held beneficially in certain assets (a policy of assurance being one) and on any interest held beneficially under a trust. Deemster Corlett made a charging and disposal order in respect of the policy. The rationale appears to be contained in the following sentences:

It seems to me therefore to be beyond argument that there is indeed property for the Charging Order to attach to because Schedule 2A specifically recognises that beneficial interests in policies of assurance and beneficial interests under trusts can be made the subject of Charging Orders. I do not accept that this Court has any duty to have the Trust Fund kept intact and not diminished for the benefit of [the son]. His interest is contingent and cannot override Mrs Yearwood's right as acreditor of Mr Yearwood to have her Manx judgment enforced under Manx law against any property in which Mr Yearwood Snr has a relevant interest.1

The Deemster appears to equate beneficial ownership of an interest under the trust with beneficial ownership of the policy itself. In doing so, the Deemster ignored the interest of the son under the trust. It would have been permissible for the Deemster to have granted a charging order in respect of Mr Yearwood's interest under the trust2, but that is not the same property as the policy.

Beneficial ownership of the policy vested in Mr Yearwood and his son. The son was not party to the English proceedings, and as the Deemster says later in the judgment "... it seems to me that the English Order is likely to be properly characterised as an in personam judgment, binding only the parties to the proceedings". It therefore seems harsh that the sins of the father were visited on the son, however the willingness of the court to do so indicates an apparent predisposition to assist enforcement of UK matrimonial court orders.

On a separate note, but supporting such predisposition, the Deemster also said that had Mrs Yearwood sought an order "giving recognition to the rewriting of the Trust Deed which was purportedly effected by the English court ... it would in my view have succeeded".

The Deemster cited in support paragraph 30 of Lord Mance's opinion in Pattni v Ali 2005/06 MLR 586 and judgments cited by Deemster Doyle in Wine v Wine (May 2007)3.

The citation from Pattni seems, however, tangential to the issue as it concerned in personam judgments regarding contractual rights, not an interest arising under a trust. Deemster Doyle in Wine (a case involving an Israeli divorce action, in which a freezing injunction and disclosure order was made in the Isle of Man) cited the cases referred to as authority for the proposition that:

The substantive dispute between the parties in this case is pending before the courts in Israel. It is the courts in Israel who are the lead courts in relation to this dispute. The courts in the Isle of Man are ancillary and insofar as it is appropriate to do soshould assist the parties and the courts in Israel in the resolution of the dispute pending determination in that jurisdiction. [emphasis added]

This proposition is unobjectionable but does not provide authority for the assertion by Deemster Corlett in Yearwood that the Isle of Man High Court could give "recognition to the rewriting of the Trust Deed".

One of the cases cited by Deemster Doyle in Wine was Charman v Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503. There Sir Mark Potter P, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said:

Mr Boyle also draws our attention to the decision of the [Royal Court of Jersey] in In the matter of the B Trust, as yet unreported, [2006] JRC 185. There, at [32], an important suggestion was made, namely that, when a party applied to it for variation of an off-shore settlement, the English court should give serious consideration to declining to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that, after conducting the substantive enquiry, it should instead invite the off-shore court, provided of course that the latter is invested with the appropriate jurisdiction, to act as an auxiliary to it in regard to any proposed variation. [emphasis added]

This therefore raises the issue of the extent to which the Isle of Man High Court has jurisdiction to "rewrite the Trust Deed". The court has several jurisdictions to vary trusts4, none of which would apply in the circumstances of this case. The court also has jurisdiction to give directions to a trustee on any question respecting the management or administration of the trust property, however this does not give the court jurisdiction to authorise a departure from such trusts5.

As regards private international law, paragraph 2 of the English Order is not one capable of registration and enforcement under any relevant statute6 in the Isle of Man, nor is it enforceable in the Isle of Man at common law despite Mr and Mrs Yearwood being the trustees7. Had the son been party to the English proceedings paragraph 2 of the English Order might be recognised by the Isle of Man courts as against him; otherwise such recognition seems contrary to the principles of natural justice. Deemster Corlett might reply to this that:

.. the Privy Council made it clear in Pattni that an estoppel might arise against those parties who submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court or who could have been present but did not choose to be. This latter point might well apply in respect of Mr. Yearwood Jnr who presumably could have applied to intervene in the English proceedings if he felt that his interests required protection in those proceedings. Alternatively, Mr. Yearwood Snr could have made representations on his son's behalf, and indeed appears to have done so through his solicitors (see, e.g., paragraph [6] above)8.[emphasis added]

However, the opinion of the Privy Council in Pattni9 does not appear to provide authority for an estoppel against parties who could have been present before the foreign court but did not choose to be (even if, which is unknown, such was the factual position of the son).

Deemster Corlett regretted that Part 6 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003, dealing with the reciprocal enforcement of financial provision orders within the British Isles, had not been given effect. The effect of Part 6 is that Financial Provision Orders, Property Adjustment Orders, Sale of Property Orders and Pension Sharing Orders made, for example, in the English High Court, should be recognised and given effect in the Isle of Man as if they had been made by the Isle of Man High Court. Deemster Corlett said that persons in the position of Mrs Yearwood are therefore obliged to take far more expensive and circuitous routes to achieve enforcement in the Isle of Man.

Yearwood is of note because the apparent enthusiasm of the Deemster to come to the aid of Mrs Yearwood indicates a judicial predisposition to assist foreign courts in the resolution of divorce proceedings, even if the juridicial basis for such assistance is unclear. This is understandable where, as here, one party was considered to have been behaving badly in the context of the divorce proceedings.

The position in Isle of Man law of an order of the English High Court varying a trust governed by Isle of Man law, at least until Part 6 of the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 is given effect, is likely to be as follows:

(i) in the case of a discretionary trust10, the trustees not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, the order is not capable of recognition or enforcement in the Isle of Man;

(ii) such trustees might decide to exercise their powers to give effect (or not, as the case may be) to the purported variation; or on application to the Isle of Man High Court under its jurisdiction to supervise trusts, the Court might approve or direct the trustees to do so;

(iii) if such trustees do not have power to give effect to the purported variation, the Isle of Man High Court has (outside a an application under the Variation of Trusts Act 1961 to which all adult beneficiaries consent) no power to itself vary the trust or confer power on such trustees to do so;

(iv) in the case of a fixed interest11 under a trust, the trustees not having submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, and although there is scant authority, the position appears to be that the order is not capable of recognition or enforcement in the Isle of Man unless the owner of that interest consents, or was party to and (if necessary) submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court;

(v) the position is complicated if the trustees submit to the jurisdiction of the English court. Doing so is risky, as it exposes the trustees to the risk of being bound by a judgment which is not compatible with their duties as trustees and/or of being a breach of trust. Submission may be necessary in certain circumstances, for example where significant trust assets are in England, however the trustees should apply to the Isle of Man High Court for approval/directions before submitting.

These problems can sometimes be overcome by the court in England (or other jurisdiction where the original order was made) making specific orders against beneficiaries or other persons within its jurisdiction having influence over the trustees or the trust and compelling such persons (perhaps under threat of contempt of proceedings) to exercise their influence to secure compliance by the trustees here with the English/foreign order.


1 Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment.

2 However it appears that was not the relief sought by Mrs Yearwood; presumably because, since the value of that interest was contingent on Mr Yearwood exercising his power of direction, and a power does not appear to be an interest which can be charged, it may be questioned whether the interest had any realizable value. 2

3 For example, Charman [2007] EWCA Civ 503 and two decisions of the Royal Court of Jersey, namely Re H Trust [2006] JLR 280 and Re B Trust [2006] JLR 562.

4 Variation of Trusts Act 1961, the Matrimonial Proceedings Act 2003 in relation to domestic and foreign divorces (Part 4 relating to divorces outside the British Islands applies only if there is a specified connection with the Isle of Man, and Part 6 relating to divorces granted within the British Islands has not yet been given effect), section 55 of the Trustee Act 1961 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction in certain circumstances. In addition, the effect of section 4 of the Trust Act 1995, which provides that all questions arising in respect of a trust which is governed by the law of the Isle of Man are to be determined according to the law of the Isle of Man, should be considered.

5 The analysis in this respect in Mubarak v Mubarak 2008 JLR 250 would apply equally in the Isle of Man.

6 The Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Isle of Man) Act, 1968 or the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1995.

7Not being for a debt or definite sum of money (Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of laws, 14th edition, rule 35).

8 Paragraph 36 of the judgment.

9 The Privy Council decision was based on the submission by the respondents to the jurisdiction of the Kenyan Court; see paragraphs 30 and 41. 9

10 That is, one in which all appropriate parties are or can be added as beneficiaries and the trustees powers of appointment etc can be used to achieve the same result as the purported variation.

11 That is, an interest which is not liable to be defeated by the exercise of the trustee's discretionary powers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions