Jersey: In re R - The Waking Of Leviathan

The former Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache has recently delivered a judgment in In re R [2011] JRC 117 which declines to follow the English Court of Appeal's test for mistake established in Pitt v Holt1. The judgment has significant implications for the future of mistake applications for settlors trying to avoid adverse tax consequences from negligent tax advice. The judgment may also mean that HMRC are afforded only a pyrrhic victory from the decision in Pitt v Holt.

The facts

The facts of R were not unusual in mistake applications. On the basis of tax advice the settlor had transferred to B Limited, a Jersey company, shares in a French company. B Limited in its capacity as trustee settled the shares on trust. The beneficiaries were the settlor's children and grandchildren and any future issue. At the time of the transfer the settlor was domiciled in England and as a result significant IHT arose in the sum of £1,943,689. Rather unusually the IHT charge was not what the mistake application was about. This was paid by the settlor and an action taken against the negligent tax advisors which was compromised. Further tax charges however were due to any distributions made to the beneficiaries who were US residents. No consideration had been given to these tax implications at the time of the transfer of shares. The implications were again significant, with a tax charge imposed of up to 100% of the value of the distribution.

The settlor gave evidence that but for the misleading and/or inadequate tax and legal advice she had received she would not have transferred the assets into the trust. She took advice from English Counsel in 2001 who at that stage advised no application could be made to rescind the transactions. In 2007 the settlor created a New Trust in which the equity of the first trust was settled. This transfer didn't give rise to any additional tax implications but both trusts remained within the IHT net, meaning that a 10 year anniversary charge would apply.

This application sought a declaration that the transfers into trust and the New Trusts were voidable.

HMRC's notification and attendance

The Royal Court gave some thought to whether in fact HMRC should be notified and convened to the application. This was based upon the Guernsey court's decision in HMRC v Gresh2 – even though that involved a Hastings Bass application. Importantly, the Court concluded that HMRC did not need to be notified or convened to the application.

The decision

Jersey law was applied as being the law of the place of the enrichment, in line with conflict of laws principles. The Jersey Royal Court took some time considering whether they should apply the English Court of Appeal's decision in Pitt v Holt.

Lloyd LJ had delivered a tour de force in Pitt which reigned in the equitable jurisdiction of Hastings Bass. Commentators and practitioners in this area had long been expecting the Court of Appeal to do so. Once that had been established, there was little rationale in keeping a wider equitable jurisdiction for cases of mistake as to tax consequences by a settlor. Lloyd LJ doubted that the test in Ogilvie v Littleboy3 meant that a settlor could bring an application for mistake as to fiscal consequences. In considering the Manx cases of Re Betsam Trust4 and Clarkson5 and the Jersey authority of Re A trust6 Lloyd LJ concluded that these decisions gave wholly inadequate effect to the gravity of the test posted by Lindley LJ in Ogilvie and ignored the distinction drawn by Millet J in Gibbon v Mitchell7 drawn between effect and consequences. Accordingly, he concluded that those cases did not represent the English law.

Ogilvie v Littleboy was of course binding precedent at the time Gibbon v Mitchell came to be determined. It was not cited in Gibbon simply because it had been lost and remained in the 'shadows' prior to it being cited in Sieff v Foxx8 in Lloyd LJ's other well known judgment in this area. Hence, Millet LJ's distinction between effect and consequences did not necessarily have to be applied as being consistent with Ogilvie because Millet LJ had never in fact considered the effect of Lindley LJ's formulation and if the two could not be reconciled, Ogilvie was binding.

The Jersey Royal Court declined to follow Lloyd LJ's formulation of the mistake test and rather followed Commissioner Clyde-Smith's test established in Re A as applied by the current Bailiff, Birt in Re Lochmore9.

Commissioner Bailhache decided that the Court could not properly say that the test propounded in Re A was wrong in law or for reasons of policy. There were several reasons for so doing. The test in Re A did not ignore the distinction between effects and consequences but rather concluded that the Ogilvie formulation was to be preferred. Secondly, that the criticism that the A Trust test did not give an adequate effect to the gravity of Lindley LJ's test was misconceived because of the stringent application of the questions first applied by the Jersey Royal Court in Re A and further refined by Birt, Bailiff in Re Lochmore. These were in fact, high hurdles for the applicant to meet. Thirdly, that the Jersey Royal Court saw no need to strive to protect the interests of the HMRC stating that "in our view Leviathan can look after itself".

One case which was cited before Commissioner Clyde-Smith in Re A, that of Ogden v Trustees of the RHS Griffiths 2003 Settlement [2008] EWHC 118 (Ch) [2009] 2 WLR 394 was not expressly cited in Re R but was referred to. Ogden had involved a rather unusual mistake namely, that the transferor was mistaken as to his health. At the time he made the transfers in question he had been terminally ill, a fact which was not known to him until after the transfers had been made. The transfers were therefore liable for IHT charges. Lewinson J at first instance found that this could lead to a voidable declaration stating; "I do not read the formulation by Millett J as limiting the overall scope of the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against the consequences of mistake. He said that a voluntary deed will be set aside if the court is satisfied that the disponer did not intend the transaction to have the effect which it did. He did not say that a voluntary deed will only be set aside if the court is satisfied that the donor did not intend the transaction to have the effect which it did. The formula of principle by Lindley LJ [ie that in Ogilvie v Littleboy as relied upon in Clarkson] and approved by the House of Lords is not so limited" (Lewinson J at page 401 of the judgment)

Lloyd LJ in Pitt v Holt had to reconcile this judgment with the Gibbon v Mitchell formulation of the mistake test which caused him some difficulty. A mistake as to your health is not a mistake as to the effect of the transaction. It is a mistake of fact which in this case led to a mistaken consequence – that of a fiscal penalty. Lloyd LJ therefore defined this as a mistake of fact which justified the mistake application because it was "basic to the transaction". In reconciling this decision the English Court of Appeal had already widened the test beyond the rather awkward distinction between 'effect' and 'consequences'. Ogden forced Lloyd LJ to find a test that either mistakes as to effects or a mistake of fact which is basic to the transaction will suffice. Once this test was relied upon there was little justification (in the Jersey Royal Court's opinion) to distinguish between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law which is similarly basic to the transaction.


Jersey has gone its own way in relation to the law on mistake applications. Time will tell whether Jersey follows England in relation to a Hastings Bass application. For HMRC the decision of Re R has significant implications. They will now need to consider whether to recognise the decision of the Jersey Royal Court under the provisions of s150 of the Inheritance Act if for example IHT is involved. It is also likely that HMRC will become more aggressive in seeking to be joined to any application by a settlor for a voidable declaration in Jersey. Leviathan will indeed have been woken but what action it now takes remains to be seen.

The author of this article was the junior Advocate for the successful Representor in Re A


1. [2011] EWCA Civ 197

2. (2009-10) GLR 239

3. Ogilvie v Allen (1889)15 TLR 294

4. [2009] WTLR 1489

5. [2007] WTLR 1703

6. [2009] JLR 447

7. [1990] 1 WLR 1304

8. [2005] 1 WLR 3811

9. In re the Lochmore Trust [2010] JRC 068

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
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