Canada: Trustee Exemption Clauses: Redundant Or Required?

Last Updated: November 26 2012

Article by Archie J. Rabinowitz, B.A., L.L.B.*

1. Introduction

Many testamentary instruments include clauses which are intended to relieve trustees from liability in the execution of their duties. Such exemption clauses, as they will be referred to in this paper, take a variety of forms but are generally quite broad so as to relieve the trustee from consequences stemming from negligence so long as the conduct does not amount to fraud or intentional wrongdoing. As noted by the Ontario Law Reform Commission ("OLRC") in its Report on the Law of Trusts, "trust instruments drawn in this Province, whether testamentary or inter vivos, very often exonerate the trustee from liability for any loss arising from the administration of the trust, if the trustee has acted in good faith".1

While thecommonlaw has not dealt with this issue to a great extent in Canada, other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue of exemption clauses to a much greater degree. This paper will examine these approaches in an attempt to discern what the future approach of the Canadian courts may be. This paper will also examine the impact of the provisions in the Trustee Act2 which also address the issue of trustee liability. While clauses which purport to relive trustees of liability have become commonplace in the creation of testamentary and trust instruments, such clauses may have little utility in light of the detailed and comprehensive statutory provisions and the approach likely to be taken by the courts.

2. Types of Exemption Clauses

The typical exemption clause, found in a trust instrument, is one which excludes the liability of the trustee for having committed an unintentional breach of trust. The reasoning upon which these clauses are based is that a duty exists, that duty has been breached, and, were it not for the clause, liability would be alleged by the beneficiaries. The exemption clause, however, operates to remove, mitigate, or reduce such liability. An example of a boilerplate exemption clause used in Ontario is the following:

I declare that my Trustees shall not be liable for any loss that may happen to my estate or be suffered by any beneficiary of my estate resulting from the exercise by my Trustees of any discretion given to them in this Will which is exercised honestly and in good faith.

In addition to the exemption clause which alters the liability of the trustee, some exclusion clauses may also operate to remove or reduce the duty owed by the trustee to the beneficiaries.3 This paper will be primarily concerned with the first type of exemption clause, although many of the factors are equally applicable to both.

The terms of exemption clauses, of either type, often specify the level of culpability required before a trustee will be held liable for a breach of trust. These levels range from fraud and recklessness to gross negligence and general negligence. Clauses may specify which type of behaviour is acceptable in the face of a breach of trust.

3. Validity of Exemption Clauses

(1) Canada

Canadian courts have not, at an appellate level, laid out a position regarding the effectiveness of exemption clauses in relieving trustees from liability for losses caused by their negligence. The Alberta case of Poche v. Poche Estate4 is the only case to substantively address this issue. In that case, a clause in a will purported to relieve the executrix and trustee for those losses not attributable to her own dishonesty or to acts which she knew to be a breach of trust. The specific exemption clause examined in that case stated:

8. I declare that the Trustee of this my Will shall not be liable for any loss not attributable:

(a) To her own dishonesty, or

(b) To a wilful commission by her of any act known by her to be a breach of trust.5

The court held that, although the trustee's conduct was not dishonest or wilful, it amounted to gross negligence and thus she could not be relieved of liability. In drawing from a line of Scottish cases, the court stated that "a trustee must be held responsible for any loss resulting from his gross negligence, regardless of any provision in the trust instrument relieving him from such liability".6

It is important that the exclusion clause be narrow enough to be properly interpreted by the court as valid and binding. As stated by Waters, the more general an exemption clause is, the more likely the courts will conclude that the settlor did not intend to relieve the trustee from liability.7 Thus, the general boilerplate exemption provisions may be of little utility to trustees as terms such as "good faith", which are often used in such clauses, are quite uncertain and can be interpreted in various ways. Notwithstanding Professor Waters' comments, the English Court of Appeal has held that an executor or trustee who drafts the trust of a settlor can properly benefit from a very broad exemption clause as long as the clause and its effect are properly brought to the attention of the settlor.8 Presumably, the Canadian courts would be more comfortable with this if the settlor is sent for independent legal advice on this point.

(2) Great Britain

Courts in England and Scotland have dealt with the issue of exemption clauses in trust instruments for many years. The House of Lords, in Knox v. Mackinnon,9 accepted that such clauses will afford considerable protection to trusteeswhohave failed to closely monitor the administration of a trust or who have committed errors of judgment. However, Lord Watson went on to state that

. . . it is settled in the law of Scotland that such a clause is ineffectual; to protect a trustee against the consequences of culpa lata, or gross negligence on his part, or of any conduct which is inconsistent with bona fides.10

Various other cases of the House of Lords have adopted the same position. Early on, in Wyman v. Patterson,11 Lord Shand stated that this position is equally applicable in both England and Scotland.

More recently, there appears to be one fundamental difference between the laws of Scotland and England. Specifically, English law has not distinguished between negligence and gross negligence in the absence of statutory or contractual terms requiring such a distinction. The Scottish civil system, however, equates gross negligence with fraud.

The English Court of Appeal, in Armitage v. Nurse,12 considered the application of exemption clauses.Thecourt stated thatnolegal or public policy reason exists which suggests that exemption clauses should generally be unenforceable. The court held that, where a provision is unambiguous at relieving a trustee from liability, such relief should be granted. The clause at hand in that case stated: "no trustee shall be liable for any loss or damage . . . at any time or from any cause whatsoever unless . . . caused by his own actual fraud".13 This clause was found by the court to be clear and unambiguous, holding that such a clause would relieve the trustee from liability regardless of how "indolent, imprudent, lacking in diligence, negligent or wilful he may have been, so long as he has not acted dishonestly".14

The Island of Jersey has taken another approach, opting to enact statutory provisions to address this issue. The relevant statute, Trust (Jersey) Law 1984, was amended in 1989 to include a new Article 26(9) (now Article 30(10)) which states:

Nothing in the terms of a trust shall relieve, release or exonerate a trustee from liability for breach of trust arising from his own fraud, wilful misconduct or gross negligence.15

The Court of Appeal of Jersey considered this provision in MidlandBank(Jersey) Ltd. v. Federated Pension Services Ltd.16 That case dealt with a trustee who delayed making an investment of funds at a time of rising stock markets, resulting in a loss estimated at £800,000.Thetrustee attempted to relyonan exemption clause which excluded liability unless there had been "a breach of trust knowingly and wilfully committed". Sir Godfrey Le Quesney provided the judgment and stated that such clauses are enforceable but should be narrowly and restrictively construed. He also held that Article 26(9) wasretrospectiveandoverrode the exemptionclause in a case of gross negligence. Since the trustee was found to have been grossly negligent, Article 26(9) disentitled him to the relief provided by the exemption clause.

Thus, while Jersey has statutory guidelines that do not exist in other British jurisdictions, the common law throughout Great Britain is clear in stating that no exemption clause will be effectual in removing liability from a trustee who has acted in bad faith but the degree of the effectiveness of such clauses varies where gross negligence is found.

(3) United States

American courts have taken a different approach to that adopted in Great Britain. In general, courts in the United States have found that relieving trustees of liability for gross negligence contravenes public policy.17 While there is considerable consensus among the States, particular States have also taken discrete positions. For instance, New York has enacted a statute which renders exclusion clauses unenforceable.

American commentators have criticised exemption clauses because they are often dictated by trustees, particularly corporate trustees, who convey to the settlor that they have the requisite skills and will act in the best interests of the settlor.18 In this way, exemption clauses are seen to have been inserted as an abuse of a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the settlor and the trustee and thus should not be accepted.

Public policy concerns have also led to the invalidation of exemption clauses. Scott describes the categories under which clauses will likely to be held to be void as against public policy. These include: breaches committed in badfaith, intentional breaches, and breaches through which the trustee benefits.19

Gross negligence is another category under which American courts have been reluctant to excuse trustees. Asstated in Browning v. Fidelity Trust Co., "a trustee cannot contract for immunity for liability for acts of gross negligence".20 Even provisions relieving trustees from ordinary negligence have been held to be against public policy in the United States since particular standards of conduct have been held to be required of trustees.21

4. Statutory Influence on Exemption Clauses in Ontario

Like other jurisdictions examined above, Ontario has relevant statutory provisions which must be examined in order to examine the utility of exemption clauses in trust instruments. The standard to be applied in seeking relief from liability differs, depending on whether or not the loss to the trust arose from the investment of trust property.

(1) Losses not Arising from Investment

There are a variety of examples of cases in which losses have occurred which have not been attributable to the investment of property—for instance,whereatrustee applies fundsinamannernot authorized by the trust instrument; where a trustee fails to act impartially between beneficiaries; or where the trustee delays paying interest-bearing debts. These are but a few examples and many more situations arise inwhichtrusteesmayseek toberelieved of liability for breach of trust.

Section 35 of the Trustee Act (the "Act") provides for the relief of Trustees committing a breach of trust. Specifically, the Act states:

35. (1) If in any proceeding affecting a trustee or trust property it appears to the Court that a trustee, or that any other person who may be held to be fiduciarily responsible as a trustee, is or may be personally liable for any breach of trust whenever the transaction alleged or found to be a breach of trust occurred, but has acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust, and for omitting to obtain the directions of the Court in the matter in which the trustee committed the breach, the Court may relieve the trustee wholly or partly from personal liability for the same.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to liability for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of trust property.22

Thus, the court has discretion to relieve trustees who have committed a breach of trust where the trustee has acted honestly and reasonably and to determine when such relief is warranted.

These provisions have been applied liberally in granting relief to Trustees who have at least met the minimum standard of care and who have acted honestly, reasonably, and in good faith. As stated in Weir v. Jackson, the statute "ought to be very liberally applied for the purpose of relieving an executor or other trustee who has acted in good faith and reasonably".23Nevertheless, this does not indicate that courts have allowed for relief in all cases. The parameters were nicely laid out by the Divisional Court in Wagner v. Van Cleef, where it was stated:

Ignorance of an administrator's duties does not make a defaulting trustee's actions reasonable, nor does complete reliance on others, including solicitors. The Courts have consistently declined to grant relief under s. 35 of the Trustee Act where there has been a complete abdication of responsibility of an administrator and trustee . . . In my view, it is unreasonable by any standard for an administrator to fail to assume any direct responsibility for the administration of an estate. Trustees are not required to be omniscient or infallible. So long as trustees exercise their discretion honestly and with ordinary prudence in light of all the information reasonably available to them at the time, a Court will not "second guess" their decisions with the benefit of hindsight.24

In that case, the administratorhad turned over complete control of the assets of an estate to a solicitor and gave that solicitor a general power of attorney to act on his behalf in the administration of the estate. The court held that the administrator had so failed in his duty and thus could not be relieved of liability under s. 35, since acting honestly and reasonably did not excuse a trustee who did nothing, and abdicated his entire duties.

It should be noted that, in order to receive any benefit from the court's discretionary power under s. 35(1), an application must be made to the court and the trustee must meet the burden of proving that he or she has "acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust" [emphasis added]. This process can be both time consuming and costly. Moreover, there is little certainty that such discretionary relief will be granted.

(2) Losses Arising from Investment

Since s. 35(2) exempts the application of s. 35(1) to losses from the trust arising from breaches relating to the investment of property, a different standard must be examined. Changes to the Act came into effect on July 1, 199925 to reflect the need for flexibility regarding investment decisions on the part of trustees while continuing to protect beneficiaries. Replacing the former enumeration of authorized investments in the old ss. 26 and 27 of the Act, the "prudent investor" standard and other guiding principles now govern the investment of property. It is important to note that these provisions are retroactive and govern the investment of trust property where the trust instrument is silent on the matter, since s. 27(9) specifically condones overriding provisions in the trust instrument.

Section 27 lays out the standard of care for trustees making investments, in part, as follows:

27. (1) Standard of care — In investing trust property, a trustee must exercise care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent investor would exercise in making investments.

(2) Authorized investments — A trustee may invest trust property in any form of property in which a prudent investor might invest . . .

The section continues, in s-s. (5) and (6), to outline criteria to be considered in planning the investment and requires the trustee to diversify when appropriate. In addition, s-s. (7) and (8) specifically permit trustees to obtain investment advice and provide that such advice may be relied upon as long as a prudent investor would rely on the advice.

Section 28 deals specifically with the protection of trustees from liability. It states thata trustee is not liable for a loss to the trust arising from the investment of property where the trustee's conduct "conformed to a plan or strategy for the investment of the trust property comprising reasonable assessment of risk and return, that a prudent investor could adopt under comparable circumstances". It is likely, in determining whether a satisfactory plan or strategy was applied, that a court will seek evidence regarding the seven criteria enumerated in s. 27(5). Thus, trustees should be diligent in documenting these steps.

5. The Future of the Exemption Clause in Ontario

As described in the preceding section, statutory provisions exist which describe the standards under which trustees will be relieved from a breach of trust. Regardless of whether an exemption clause is included in a trust instrument, the provisions apply. Thus, presumably, if a testator wished to hold trustees to the same standard as outlined in the statute, an exemption clause would be redundant. That said, it may remove the need to defer to judicial discretion. If, on the other hand, a different standard than is provided by the Act is desired, an exemption clause may be in order.

Although Canadian courts have not considered the issue in any depth, it seems as though, while some standards may be approved, a complete exoneration in a trust instrument is not enforceable.

Should the settlor go further and attempt to exonerate his trustee from liability for loss or damage howsoever occurring, this must surely be held invalidthe fact remains that a total exoneration of liability, including the exercise of good faith, must be contrary to public policy. Not only is a trustee a fiduciarybut the essence of a trust is a beneficiary's right of recourse against the trustee for improper administration, and if the beneficiary is altogether denied that recourse it is highly questionable whether the settlor has created a trust at all.26

The OLRC has taken the same approach, stating:

We therefore recommend that no term in a trust instrumentshould be valid to the extent that it purports to exonerate trustees from liability for failure to exercise the degree of care, diligence, and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with the property of another person.27

This position seems to go even one step further than Waters (who casts doubt as to the validity of a clause which purports to provide the trustee with a total exoneration of liability), indicating that no clause may purport to relieve trustees from liability under a lower standard than enunciated in the Act.

As previously stated, Poche is the only judicial indication of the Canadian position on the enforceability of exemption clauses in trust instruments. That case held that the estate trustee could not be relieved of liability by virtue of the exclusion clause for loss caused by her grossly negligent conduct. It remains to be decided whether general negligence would be treated the same way.

It has been stated that the following principles would likely be adopted if the courts were, once again, asked to consider the enforceability of exclusion clauses in trust instruments:

  1. an exculpatory clause cannot excuse liability for acts of gross negligence;
  2. an exculpatory clause cannot excuse liability for wilful defaults or intentional wrongdoing;
  3. an exculpatory clause cannot excuse liability for acts of fraud or dishonesty; and
  4. an appropriately drafted exculpatory clause will be effective to relieve a trustee from liability for breaches of trust of lesser culpability than acts of gross negligence, intentional wrongdoing or bad faith.28

The English court of Appeal, in Armitage, correctly stated that, if exemption clauses "are to be denied effect, then in my opinion this should be done by Parliament which will have the advantage of wide consultation with interested bodies".29

One concern with abolishing exemption clauses is that arguably trustees would be reluctant to take on the post without them. However, if the relevant legislation protects trustees to a sufficient extent, this would no longer be of concern. It remains to be seen whether the statutory exemptions in the Act will amount to adequate protection to trustees, or whether further amendments will become desirable.

* Of Goodman and Carr LLP. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Martha Simmons, student-at-Law for her assistance in the preparation of this paper. This paper is submitted in honour and memory of the late Wolfe D. Goodman Q.C., LSM, SJD, a founding partner of the firm, a great mentor, and one of Canada's leading estate planning and tax lawyers.


1. Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Trusts, 1984, at p. 39.

2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23.

3. An example of this type of clause can be found in the English Privy Counsel decision of Hayim v. Citibank, [1987] AC 730, in which the testator appointed an executor on the terms that the executor "shall have no responsibility or duty with respect to" his house in Hong Kong until the death of both of the testator's siblings.

4. (1983), 6 D.L.R. (4th) 40, 16 E.T.R. 68, 50 A.R. 264 (Alta. Surr. Ct.).

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., at para. 70.

7. Donovan W.M. Waters, Mark R. Gillen, Lionel D. Smith, Waters' Law of Trusts in Canada, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2005), at p. 928.

8. Bogg v. Raper, [1998] Times 22 April.

9. (1888), 13 App. Cas. 753 (H.L.).

10. Ibid.

11. [1900] A.C. 271 (H.L.).

12. [1998] Ch. 241 (C.A.) [hereinafter Armitage].

13. Ibid., at para.

14. Ibid., at para. 24.

15. Article 26(9) is now found in Article 30(10) after the most recent amendments to the Trust (Jersey) Law 1984 which came into force on the 27th of October, 2006.

16. [1996] PLR 179.

17. A.W. Scott, The Law of Trusts, 4th ed., Volume III (Little Brown, 1987), at paras. 222 and 222.3 [hereinafter Scott].

18. G.T. Bogert, Trusts, 6th ed. (West Hornbook Series, 1987).

19. Scott, op. cit., footnote 17.

20. Browning v. Fidelity Trust Co., 250 F 321 (3rd Cir. 1918), at 325.

21. Scott, op. cit., footnote 17, at para. 222.3.

22. Trustee Act, supra, footnote 2, at s. 35. As will be discussed in more detail below, investment property is dealt with in ss. 28 and 29 of the Act.

23. Weir v. Jackson (1905), 5 O.W.R. 281 (Div. Ct.), at p. 282.

24. Wagner v. Van Cleeff (1991), 5 O.R. (3d) 477, 43 E.T.R. 115, 53 O.A.C. 161 (Div. Ct.).

25. Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 18

26. Waters, op. cit., footnote 7, at p. 927 [Waters' Law of Trusts].

27. OLRC, op. cit., footnote 1, at pp. 41-42.

28. Donovan W.M. Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1984), at pp. 756-7.

29. Armitage, supra, footnote 12, at p. 256.

Previously published in the Volume 26, of the Estates, Trusts & Pensions Journal

About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)

FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices located in the country's key business centres. We focus on providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on our clients' needs. Visit:

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.

Events from this Firm
25 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Dentons hosted a panel discussion about the management of liabilities and risks associated with environmental crises, including potential liabilities for directors and officers and provided insight into risk and liability techniques associated with environmental crisis management.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.