Jersey: Taking Back Control: Undue Influence And Trust Revocations

Last Updated: 4 December 2018
Article by Robert Dobbyn


Undue influence was the issue at stake in a judgment of the Royal Court of Jersey this month. In Representation of Jasmine Trustees re Piedmont Trust and Riviera Trust,1 the court held that revocation notices issued by two settlors had been vitiated by the undue influence of the family patriarch, and should therefore be set aside.


This judgment involved two Jersey-law revocable discretionary trusts: the Piedmont Trust and the Riviera Trust. The trustees were two Jersey trust companies, Jasmine Trustees Limited and Lutea Trustees Limited. The beneficiaries of the two trusts included the family patriarch, his three children (a daughter and two sons) and their respective issue.

The settlor of the two trusts was not the patriarch himself but rather two of his relatives. However, it was clear from papers submitted to the court that the trusts had been established by them at his instigation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, when the patriarch's relationship with his daughter deteriorated significantly, this was reflected in the two settlors' letters of wishes: although all three children were beneficiaries of the trusts, the letters indicated that, after the patriarch's death, the trusts' assets should be earmarked only for the two sons' branches of the family.

Acrimonious litigation then followed, both in Jersey and in the United States. This included, in 2014, an attempt by the patriarch to remove Jasmine and Lutea as trustees and to appoint a New Zealand trust company in their place. He also sought to appoint his sons as protectors of the trusts in his place. These appointments were all declared invalid by the court, so that Jasmine and Lutea continued to be the trustees, albeit the retirement of the patriarch as protector was held to be valid even though his sons' appointments were not, meaning that the trusts no longer had protectors at all.2

In 2017, however, matters took a new turn when the two settlors sent signed revocation notices to the trustees. This caused the trustees various difficulties, not least of which was the fact that the bank with which the underlying companies' accounts were held refused to comply with the trustees' instructions for payment of certain fees. The trustees therefore brought representations seeking directions as to whether the revocation notices were valid. This was the matter to be determined by the present judgment.

The law on revocation and the grounds on which the revocations could be attacked

The ability of a settlor to revoke a trust is assisted by Article 40 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, which includes the following wording:

"40 Power of revocation

  1. A trust and any exercise of a power under a trust may be expressed to be –
    1. revocable whether wholly or partly; or
    2. capable of variation.
  2. No such revocation or variation shall prejudice anything lawfully done by a trustee in relation to a trust before the trustee receives notice of such revocation or variation.
  3. Subject to the terms of the trust, if it is revoked the trustee shall hold the trust property in trust for the settlor absolutely.
  4. Where a trust is partly revoked paragraph (3) shall apply to the property which is the subject of such revocation.
  5. In paragraph (3) "settlor" means the particular person who provided the property which is the subject of revocation."

This is a useful starting point in that it provides clear authority for the premise that the trusts could, in principle, be revoked by their settlors. Not present in this Article, however, but accepted by the parties and the court, was the more significant point that a power of revocation was a beneficial power (as opposed to a limited or fiduciary power). This categorisation mattered because it meant that the settlors could exercise their powers to revoke the trusts as they saw fit, with no duty to have regard to the interests of the beneficiaries.

As one might expect, the daughter had not welcomed the revocations, given her anticipation that the patriarch would use the revocations to restructure the assets so as to ensure that she could not benefit from them. However, given the above categorisation of the powers of revocation as beneficial powers, it was not open to the daughter to attack the revocations on the grounds that they were exercised for an improper purpose (ie as a fraud on a power).

What did remain, however, was a potential argument that the powers of revocation had been exercised subject to the undue influence of the patriarch, or failing that, that they should be set aside on the grounds of mistake.

Undue influence

The law of undue influence in Jersey is similar to that of English law.3 In particular, undue influence is an equitable remedy designed to ensure that the influence of one person over another is not abused. This goes beyond overt acts of improper pressure or coercion, such as unlawful threats (which would be more typically characterised as duress, rather than undue influence), to more subtle scenarios where someone takes unfair advantage of another person using their position of influence.

That said, the court held that the Jersey law of undue influence was untroubled by the different historical roots of common law and equity in England that could, in some cases, cause difficulties in relation to the remedies available. In particular, the court had no hesitation in dismissing the patriarch's argument that the only person with standing to apply to set aside a transaction effected under undue influence was the victim of that undue influence. That would have meant that only the settlors could have sought to rescind their revocations. Instead, the court held that Jersey law allows a beneficiary to seek to impugn a revocation of a trust on the ground that the settlor exercised the power when under the undue influence of another.

Having held that the daughter, as a discretionary beneficiary, had standing to bring proceedings on the ground of undue influence, the next question therefore was whether undue influence had actually affected the two trust revocations. In deciding this point, the court largely relied on evidence from the daughter, but the court held that the absence of any denials from the patriarch was also telling.4

The court decided that undue influence was comfortably made out on the facts. The evidence showed that, following the abortive attempt by the patriarch to replace both the trustees and himself as the protector, the patriarch had urged his lawyers to meet with the settlors, which appeared to put the settlors in difficulty as they felt it necessary to instruct their own lawyers. The settlors then sent a heartfelt plea to the family to sort out their differences and referred to letters from legal firms (the patriarch's, the court found) "threatening us", such that they were worried and felt in "torment". It appeared that the settlors had been threatened by the patriarch with "consequences" if they did not revoke the trusts and transfer the funds to the patriarch. One of the settlors in particular, when she spoke with the daughter on the telephone, was "very, very upset and audibly shaken".

Furthermore, the evidence showed that the patriarch had arranged delivery of the revocation notices to the trustees and indeed to the bank in an attempt to persuade it not to act upon the instructions of the trustees.


The daughter had submitted that the revocation notices could also be set aside on the grounds of mistake, on the grounds that the settlors had failed to understand the Italian tax consequences of revoking the trusts and because the settlors incorrectly considered themselves to be the patriarch's nominees. However, the court held that the question of mistake could only arise if undue influence had not been made out. This is because the exercise of a power may only be set aside on the ground of mistake if the power would not have been exercised "but for" the mistake in question. As the court put it:

"If, as we have found, the power was exercised because the will of the settlors was overborne by the threats and pressure exerted by the father, the power of revocation was not exercised because the settlors were labouring under a mistake; it was exercised because of the threats by the father." Nevertheless, the court did go on to summarise briefly its conclusions on mistake. In essence, the court's view was that, if undue influence had not been made out, there would have been insufficient evidence to establish that the settlors were unaware of the tax consequences or that they genuinely considered themselves to be the settlors' nominees. Quite the opposite, in fact.


It is helpful to have a clear Jersey authority on the application of undue influence in a trusts context. However, the case also sheds some light on some related points that may be of interest to trust practitioners.

Firstly, the case makes clear what was already clear as a matter of English law, which is that the power of revocation is a beneficial one. This means that trustees are not generally under a duty to scrutinise the reasons why a settlor is choosing to revoke a trust, assuming at least that it is clear that the settlor is doing so freely. It also means that it is not necessary for there to be a specific power in the trust documentation to enable the settlor to release his power of revocation in the event that he wishes to do so (for example, for US tax reasons, or so as to make the trust more robust from an asset-protection perspective).

Secondly, the judgment makes the point that, where assets need to be returned to more than one settlor following a revocation, one need not engage in a complicated tracing exercise where the original assets have intermingled or changed in nature. Instead, the court's view was that the assets should be transferred to the settlors in proportion to the values of the initial contributions.


1 [2018] JRC 210

2 Jasmine Trustees Limited and Lutea Trustees Limited v L and Others [2015] (2) JLR 52. This earlier litigation provides very useful guidance to trustees on the manner in which they should go about their fiduciary obligations.

3 Toothill v HSBC Bank Plc [2008] JLR 77

4 Drawing on the endorsement by Lord Sumption in Prest v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415 of the following statement: "the silence of one party in face of the other party's evidence may convert that evidence into proof in relation to matters which are, or are likely to be, within the knowledge of the silent party and about which that party could be expected to give evidence."

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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