The latest application dealing with the law of mistake has been
decided by the Jersey Royal Court. It is yet another application
that has arisen from the activities of the firm of English
Solicitors Baxendale Walker which is no longer in existence.
Mr and Mrs Wilkes wished to raise a loan against their home
(the Property) partly to pay off a business loan
and partly to provide cash.
Upon the advice of Baxendale Walker, the Wilkes entered into a
scheme whereby (they were told) they would each be able to receive
an annuity income from the date that each of them respectively
reached 75 years of age.
In summary, the scheme required i) the establishment of a trust
in Jersey (the Trust) with an offshore trustee
(the Trustee) and ii) the entering into by each of
the Wilkes of an Estate Annuity Purchase Deed
(EAPD) whereby the Trustee would pay the Wilkes an
annuity as consideration for the transfer by each of the Wilkes to
the Trustee of a 50% beneficial interest and equity of redemption
in the Property.
The Wilkes also wished to invest in a property on a buy-to-let
basis (the Investment Property). The Investment
Property was bought by a company called Cheveral Investments
Limited and all fees and legal charges were provided by the Trustee
with finance agreements being entered into by one of the
There are no longer any assets in the Trust and the Property is
in negative equity. All that is left is the Investment Property but
this is still held in the name of Cheveral Investments Limited.
The Court has intervened to set a number of similar schemes
aside upon the grounds of mistake. Notwithstanding that the EAPDs
involved were said to be governed by English law, the Trust itself
was governed by Jersey law. Accordingly, the Court applied the
Jersey law of mistake to the application pursuant to article 9(1)
of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (the Law) which
provides that the validity of a Jersey trust and validity and
effect of any transfer of property into a Jersey trust shall be
determined in accordance with the law of Jersey with no rule of
foreign law affecting such a question.
The Court was willing to consider the creation of the EAPDs
alongside the creation of the Trust on the basis that the two were
inextricably linked in that the EAPDs were an essential part of the
The Court confirmed that the test for mistake is the same
whether it is approached under Article 11 or Article 47(e) of the
Law and reaffirmed the test for mistake as set out in Re Lochmore
was there a mistake on the part of the settlor?
would the settlor not have entered into the transaction
“but for” the mistake?
was the mistake of so serious a character as to render it
unjust on the part of the donee to retain the property?
The mistake was attributed to the scheme itself. The Court held
that the Wilkes had been mistaken when they entered into the scheme
on the basis that it would have been unlawful for the Trustee to
pay the annuity on the basis that it was not in possession of a
permit authorising the Trustee to carry out long term insurance
business. The EAPDs were therefore classed as illegal contracts.
Secondly it was impossible for the annuity to be paid at the level
set out in the EAPDs as it was found that there would always have
been insufficient assets in the Trust.
The Court was satisfied that the above findings constituted a
mistake made by the Wilkes as they entered into a scheme that was
incapable of performance. Furthermore the Court held that the
Wilkes would not have entered into the scheme ‘but for’
the mistake made and that the mistake was of so serious a character
as to render it unjust on the part of the donee to retain the
property. The Court noted that there were no beneficiaries of the
Trust who would suffer from it being set aside.
The Court declared the Trust and the EAPDs to be invalid and
that the assets of the Trust (including the Investment Property
held by Cheveral) were held on bare trust for the Wilkes and were
so held at all times.
This case is further clarification that, whether the matter is
approached under article 11 or the more recently drafted article
47(e) of the Law, the Court will most likely apply the same test.
It is also noteworthy that the mistake was not based on adverse tax
consequences as we have seen on many occasions but rather on the
scheme’s incapability of performance.
1  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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Many people are baffled by trusts, the purpose of which they don't fully comprehend. Some even regard them with suspicion, as tools of of opaque tax evasion strategies of a type favoured by wealthy individuals.
We were recently instructed by a Bank in relation to a regulatory matter. The Bank had made a suspicious activity report to the Financial Investigation Unit ("FIU") due to their concerns about the potential source of funds in an account.
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).