Canada: Tax Court Of Canada Decisions Relating To Non-Resident Trusts

Copyright 2009, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Tax, October 2009

The Tax Court of Canada (the Court) recently released two decisions affecting the use of trusts as tax planning vehicles. Both cases involved offshore trusts that had trustees resident in Barbados and beneficiaries resident in Canada. In both cases, the taxpayers had arranged their affairs so that capital gains from the disposition of assets would be realized by the trusts in Barbados and not subject to tax. An exemption from Canadian tax liability would be claimed under the Canada-Barbados Tax Treaty (the Treaty). In both cases, the Court held the arrangements failed.

In Garron Family Trust et al. v. The Queen, the Court shifted away from the generally accepted, long-standing, common law basis for determining trust residency based on trustee residence to a residency determination based on the location of the central management and control of the trust. In Antle et al. v. The Queen, the Court held that the trust arrangement failed as the requirements for the valid formation of a trust were not met, and that in any event, the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) would have applied to deny the benefit.


Trust Residence determined based on Location of Central Management and Control, not Residence of Trustee

Garron concerned a disposition of shares of Canadian corporations by two offshore trusts with Canadian resident beneficiaries which were formed in 1998 (the 1998 Trusts). The sole trustee of each 1998 Trust was a corporation resident in Barbados (the Trustee). The 1998 Trusts had been settled in the context of a corporate reorganization of PMPL Holdings Inc. (PMPL). The reorganization involved an estate freeze in favour of the 1998 Trusts. The 1998 Trusts were sole shareholders of Canadian holding corporations which acquired non-voting common shares in PMPL for nominal consideration. In 2000, as part of an arm's-length sale, the 1998 Trusts disposed of the majority of their interests in the Canadian holding corporations, realizing capital gains of over C$450-million. In their income tax returns for the 2000 taxation year, the 1998 Trusts sought a return of the amounts withheld on the sale (pursuant to section 116 of the Income Tax Act (the Act)), claiming an exemption from Canadian tax liability under the Treaty. Article XIV(4) of the Treaty provides that, subject to exceptions that did not apply, gains from the alienation of property may only be taxed by the state where the alienator is resident. Under the Barbadian tax law, the gains would not have been subject to tax and, accordingly, if the Treaty exemption applied, the 1998 Trusts would not face any tax liability for the gains. The 1998 Trusts asserted that the Treaty exemption was available as the 1998 Trusts were resident in Barbados. The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) took the position that the exemption did not apply and assessed the 1998 Trusts in respect of the gains.

The Minister's primary argument was that the Treaty exemption was unavailable as the 1998 Trusts were resident in Canada. Although the Trustee's residence was acknowledged to be in Barbados, the Minister submitted that the Trustee was a compliant trustee and that true management and control of the 1998 Trusts was exercised by certain Canadian resident beneficiaries. The 1998 Trusts relied on a 1978 decision of the Federal Court, Thibodeau Family Trust v. The Queen, for the position that a trust is resident in the jurisdiction where its trustee resides, and that the place of central management and control, the test that applies in determining the residency of corporations, does not apply to trusts. The 1998 Trusts' position was consistent with the general understanding of tax practitioners with respect to determinations of trust residency.

The Court dismissed the 1998 Trusts' appeals and held that the judicial test of residence that has been established for corporations, "where the central management and control actually abides", should apply to trusts with appropriate modifications. The Court stated that Thibodeau should not be taken as setting out a test for trust residence based solely on residence of the trustee; rather, Thibodeau was intended to be limited to its particular facts. The Court further held that the statement in Thibodeau rejecting the central management and control test was premised on the idea that management and control of the trust must reside with the trustees because trustees cannot delegate their authority to others as it would be a breach of their fiduciary obligations. In the Court's view, it is inappropriate to presume that trustees are complying with their fiduciary obligations and this must be determined based on the particular facts of the situation.

As for the meaning of "management and control", the Court in Garron looked to the corporate context and stated that management and control is usually found to reside with the directors even though they may be under significant influence from shareholders or others, and while no definitive statement could be made, something more than evidence of mere influence would be required to find that management and control was located with the shareholders. In the trust context, it was noted that effective management occurs where key decisions are made notwithstanding that a trustee may be making certain low level decisions elsewhere.

The Court considered a number of factors to be relevant in determining that management and control of the 1998 Trusts resided with the Canadian resident beneficiaries and not the Trustee. The Court found that the Trustee had been selected by or on behalf of the beneficiaries to provide administrative services with respect to the 1998 Trusts. The Court found that the Trustee's role was to execute documents as required and provide incidental administrative services, and it was generally not expected that the Trustee would have responsibility for decision-making beyond that. Although there was no explicit evidence that this was the case, the Court came to this conclusion based on the evidence as a whole including the failure of the appellants to provide evidence establishing otherwise. The Court noted that although the administrative nature of the trustee arrangement was likely unwritten, it was effectively enforceable through a protector mechanism that allowed the protector to replace the Trustee, and the protector itself could be replaced by the beneficiaries. The Court also found that, more likely than not, the Trustee had agreed from the outset that it would defer to the beneficiaries' recommendations, and that the beneficiaries also understood this to be the arrangement. The factors the Court considered in concluding that the Trustee had a limited role were as follows:

  1. Internal Memoranda indicating Limited Role: There were internal memoranda setting out the intentions of the Trustee, and these documents showed that the Trustee's role would be more limited than contemplated in the trust indentures. Specifically, the Court found that the internal memoranda indicated that the Trustee's role in respect of the arm's-length share sale was administrative in nature and that the Trustee would not make distributions to certain beneficiaries without the consent of other beneficiaries.
  2. Trust Investments appeared to be Under Control of the Beneficiaries: In the Court's view, the evidence also suggested that investment of the share sale proceeds was under the direction of certain Canadian resident beneficiaries of the 1998 Trusts because the investment advisors were the same as the applicable beneficiaries' investment advisors and the advisors appeared to have been selected and directed by these beneficiaries rather than the Trustee.
  3. Tax Advisors appeared to be Directed by the Beneficiaries: The Court found that the evidence suggested that the tax minimization plans developed by the tax advisors were under the direction of certain of the beneficiaries of the 1998 Trusts rather than the Trustee.
  4. No Documentation was provided as Evidence that the Trustee played an Active Role: There was no documentary evidence that the Trustee had any involvement beyond executing agreements and providing administrative services.
  5. Trustee's Expertise in Managing Trust Assets was Questionable: For a significant period of time, the Trustee had been an arm of an accounting firm, and was likely formed to complement the tax services offered by the firm. The Court found that it was questionable on the evidence whether the firm had any expertise in managing trust assets.
  6. Oral Testimony was not inconsistent with the view that the Trustee had a Limited Role: The Court found that the oral testimony was also consistent with the view that the Trustee had a limited role because it appeared that the Trustee was not sufficiently informed of matters related to the share sale transactions, the beneficiaries seemed to have little interest in what the Trustee was doing, the Trustee appeared to have done minimal due diligence (e.g., on investments of the 1998 Trusts) to ensure that its fiduciary obligations were being complied with and the Trustee did not appear knowledgeable about the 1998 Trusts' investments.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court found the management and control of the 1998 Trusts to reside with certain Canadian resident beneficiaries and, accordingly, the 1998 Trusts were found to be resident in Canada.

The Minister had also argued, in the alternative, that if the 1998 Trusts were not Canadian residents under the common law test, they should be deemed residents pursuant to paragraph 94(1)(c) of the Act, which deems an offshore trust to be a Canadian resident for certain purposes where particular conditions are met. Among other things, paragraph 94(1)(c) applies where the trust has acquired property, directly or indirectly, from a Canadian resident beneficiary. The Court found there was no transfer of property, but commented that even if paragraph 94(1)(c) had applied, the exemption pursuant to Article XIV(4) of the Treaty would still be available as the scope of taxation imposed under paragraph 94(1)(c) was limited and not sufficient to result in Canadian residency for Treaty purposes.

The Minister further argued that even if tax would not otherwise be exigible under the Act, the GAAR should apply to deny the benefit. The Minister argued that it was abusive to use the Treaty to avoid anti-avoidance legislation such as section 94. The Court rejected this argument, and held that it is not necessarily a misuse or abuse to use the Treaty exemption to avoid an anti-avoidance rule under the Act. Further, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's commentary to the model treaty, upon which the Treaty was based, noted that while treaties are not intended to assist with tax avoidance, they should be amended to take into account domestic tax avoidance legislation. The Court found that, had the drafters intended section 94 to override the Treaty, they would have specifically provided for this. The Minister made other arguments in an attempt to establish an abuse of the Treaty. However, the Court concluded that the Minister had failed to establish that the avoidance transactions resulted in an abuse of the Treaty.


Contrary to what many in the tax and estate planning community have long believed, it appears that the residence of a trustee will not suffice to establish the trust's residence for tax purposes. This will likely be relevant for determining trust residency not only at the federal level, but also with respect to inter-provincial trust arrangements. If the reasoning in Garron is followed, the Canada Revenue Agency and Canadian courts will now be applying a test of central management and control.

To avoid a finding that someone other than a trustee effectively controls a trust, management and control of a trust must remain with the trustees. It is critical that authority for significant decisions remain with the trustee. The mere fact that beneficiaries or other persons have some influence over the trustee should not be sufficient to shift the trust's residence to align with these persons. However, it will be necessary to ensure that the trustee has sufficient independent decision-making power and it will also be prudent to compile express evidence of this arrangement. This evidence may include communications with persons advising the trustee, with such communications providing evidence that the trustee is independently making decisions and is complying with its fiduciary obligations. In situations where the trustee does not follow recommendations made to it by beneficiaries or other persons connected with the trust, evidence of these independent actions should also be maintained as evidence of the exercise of authority by the trustee.


Court Finds that Trust Not Validly Constituted and Concludes that GAAR would have Applied

Antle involved a transaction known as a "capital property step-up strategy". Mr. Antle had transferred shares with an accumulated gain to a Barbados spousal trust (the Antle Trust) in favour of his wife. Because paragraph 94(1)(c) deemed the Antle Trust to be a Canadian resident, the spousal rollover rules applied and no tax liability arose on the transfer. The Antle Trust then sold the property to the beneficiary wife in exchange for a promissory note, who in turn sold it to a third party for the same amount and used the proceeds to pay off the Antle Trust. The Antle Trust then distributed the funds tax-free to the wife and was dissolved. Had the arrangement succeeded, the result would have been zero tax liability, as there was no capital gain taxable in Canada (the wife personally made no profit on the share sale, and the Antle Trust could claim the exemption pursuant to Article XIV(4) of the Treaty), and the gain arising to the Antle Trust was not subject to tax in Barbados. The Minister challenged the strategy on a number of grounds, issuing assessments against both Mr. Antle and the Antle Trust.

The Court disposed of the appeal on the basis that the Antle Trust had not been validly constituted and, thus, never came into existence. To constitute a valid trust, three certainties must exist (intention, subject matter and object), and there must be a completed transfer of the subject property by the settlor to the trust. The Court found that certainty of intention had not been made out. Notwithstanding that the trust deed was explicit as to the intent to settle the Antle Trust, the Court held that the search for intention should not be limited to the trust document alone, and that the actual conduct of the parties was relevant to determining the settlor's true intent. Here, the steps in the transaction had all been pre-ordained by legal and financial advisors, and Mr. Antle's sole concern was that the transactions were effective so as to avoid or minimize tax. The Court held that the circumstances were not indicative of an intention to settle a trust, but rather, if Mr. Antle had intended the trustee to play any role, it was at best as an agent in a gift from Mr. Antle to his wife. The Court further found that certainty of subject matter was lacking, and the Antle Trust also failed as Mr. Antle had never properly settled the shares. The trust deed itself was not worded to effect a transfer, and the directors' resolution purporting to authorize the transfer was backdated. As well, Mr. Antle's share certificate did not indicate a transferee, was not in fact delivered until after the purported settlement of the Antle Trust, and was not delivered to the trustee but directly to the ultimate third-party purchaser. Finally, the share certificate was pledged as security and the release by the Creditor made no mention of a transfer to the Antle Trust. Given these findings, the Court held that no trust was duly constituted, quashed the Antle Trust's appeal and dismissed Mr. Antle's.

The Court also considered whether, if the Antle Trust had been validly constituted, it was nonetheless a sham. The Minister argued that the terms of the Antle Trust giving the trustee discretion were a deception. The Court found that the trustee did not have any real discretion as the matters were pre-ordained. The trustee received the shares on the basis that the sole beneficiary had already agreed to buy them and, by distributing the proceeds of such sale back to the beneficiary, there was no possibility of any comeback against him. As such, the arrangement was, in and of itself, void of discretion. Further, the sole purpose for the arrangement was to avoid tax. However, the Court noted that a sham requires an element of deceit, and that it is necessary for both the settlor and the trustee to be parties to the sham. The Court found that if there had been any deception, it was an innocent self-deception on the part of Mr. Antle and the trustee, as Mr. Antle did not fully appreciate what a trust was, and the trustee was "a young pawn in a masterful game of chess by some experienced chess masters" (i.e., the legal and accounting advisors). Accordingly, the Court held that notwithstanding the lack of discretion and avoidance motivation, the Antle Trust was not a sham.

Finally, the Court considered whether, if the Antle Trust was properly constituted and not a sham, the GAAR should apply to deny the tax benefit. The Court found this to be the case for Mr. Antle but not for the Antle Trust. The Court noted that it should consider not only the provisions relied on by the taxpayer, but also those circumvented, being the attribution rules in sections 74.1 to 74.5 of the Act. Looking at the rollover and attribution rules, together with the paragraph 94(1) (c) deemed residency for certain offshore trusts, the Court found that the object, spirit and purpose of the provisions was to ensure taxation of Canadian residents on capital gains arising on disposition of capital property outside the marital unit, including through the use of offshore trusts. The Court held that while the Treaty might save the Antle Trust, it was not intended to save the Canadian resident from the application of GAAR in the circumstances before it. The Court held that the Act and Treaty contemplate payment by Canadian residents of Canadian income tax on a gain arising on the sale of property held by a Canadian marital unit, and did not contemplate running property through Barbados and returning it to the Canadian marital unit for the sole purpose of escaping that Canadian payment of tax. Accordingly, the Court found there had been an abuse of the Act, of the Treaty and of the joint operation of both.


The decision in Antle indicates that where a trust is perceived as having been settled for tax purposes, the courts will scrutinize the arrangements and transactions very closely.

In finding that the Trust in Antle never came into existence, the Court made the following comments:

"This conclusion emphasizes how important it is, in implementing strategies with no purpose other than avoidance of tax, that meticulous and scrupulous regard be had to timing and execution. Backdating of documents, fuzzy intentions, lack of transfer documents, lack of discretion, lack of commercial purpose, delivery of signed documents distributing capital from the trust prior to its purported settlement, all frankly miss the mark – by a long shot. They leave an impression of elaborate window dressing. In short, if you are going to play the avoidance game, it is not enough to have brilliant strategy, you must have brilliant execution."

Accordingly, when entering and carrying out trust arrangements for tax planning purposes, care should be taken to ensure that all formalities are strictly complied with and the timing of various steps in the process is given due attention up front.

With respect to the GAAR, the Court clearly felt the taxpayer should not be able to avoid tax on the gain. In arriving at its conclusion, the Court appears to be saying that the Canadian government could never have contemplated this use of an offshore trust to avoid Canadian tax by a marital unit, and that an absence of anti-avoidance rules for a particular transaction cannot be taken as a basis for inferring policy. One significant factual difference in the GAAR analysis between Garron and Antle is that in Antle, the gain had accrued while the property was owned by a Canadian resident whereas in Garron, had the 1998 Trusts been found to be resident in Barbados, the gains would have accrued while the property was owned by non-residents of Canada. The implications of the Antle decision for inter-provincial tax planning are not clear. The Act includes deemed disposition rules to ensure that tax is paid on a change of federal residency while the provincial income tax acts do not generally contain rules that would trigger provincial income tax where a taxpayer's provincial residence changes. The only GAAR case to date dealing with the application of a provincial GAAR to inter-provincial tax planning is OGT Holdings Ltd. v. Quebec where the Quebec Court of Appeal found a Quebec shuffle transaction that resulted in a complete avoidance of provincial tax to be abusive.

The comments of the Court in both Garron and Antle may be of assistance when considering whether the GAAR could apply to a taxpayer on the basis of treaty shopping. In Garron, the Minister argued that the 1998 Trusts should not benefit from the Treaty because they had little connection to Barbados. The Court was unwilling to accept this argument stating that it would not be acceptable to apply the Treaty to residents of Barbados based on some criteria other than residence. In the Court's view, if the 1998 Trusts are resident in Barbados, the Treaty applies – it does not matter that the 1998 Trusts have few connections to Barbados. In Antle, the Court found that the GAAR applied to Mr. Antle rather than the Antle Trust. Throughout the GAAR discussion in Antle, it is clear that the Court was offended by the fact that Mr. Antle transferred a gain that had accrued in Canada to a Barbados trust which was not subject to Canadian tax. In looking at the Antle Trust in isolation from the rest of the series of transactions, the Court was not offended by the application of Article XIV(4) of the Treaty to the Antle Trust. In considering Article XIV(4) of the Treaty, the Court stated, "Article XIV(4) is what it is" – i.e., it simply states that gains are to be taxed in the alienator's country of residence, there is no further object or purpose to be found. Of course, it will always be necessary to consider the totality of the transactions to determine whether the GAAR could apply to other parties involved or in respect of provisions of the Act itself which may have been abused.

At the time of writing, neither case had been appealed, but the time for filing such appeals has not expired. We understand that Garron will likely be appealed.

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
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

In association with
Related Video
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.