Jersey: The Extent Of The Royal Court Of Jersey's Power To Ratify Actions Of Invalidly Appointed Trustees


In a recent decision, the Royal Court of Jersey set aside the appointment of trustees under the provisions of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 and clarified the extent of its power to ratify actions taken by trustees whose appointment had been quashed.


In the recent decision of In the Matter of the Z Trust [2016] JRC 048 the Royal Court's statutory jurisdiction to set aside the exercise of fiduciary powers was used to set aside the appointment of new trustees by a settlor.

So far, so good. However, following the setting aside of the appointment of new trustees what would become of the transactions undertaken by the purported trustees during the course of their 'trusteeship'? In this recent decision, the Royal Court of Jersey proceeded to consider carefully and clarify the extent of its power to ratify actions taken by purported trustees prior to their appointment being quashed.

The application was brought by a beneficiary of a Jersey law trust (the Trust), the principal asset of which was the issued share capital in a foreign (ie non-Jersey) company (the Company), which owned property in England. The application arose out of various appointments, which resulted in significant adverse tax consequences for the beneficiaries of the Trust. The appointments can be summarized as follows:

  1. the appointment by the late settlor of UK-resident trustees (the Purported Trustees);
  2. the appointment by the retiring directors of the Company of a UK-incorporated director (being a company controlled by the Purported Trustees); and
  3. the transfer of shares in the Company to a UKincorporated nominee for the Purported Trustees (i)–(iii) inclusive will be referred to as the Appointments.

The settlor's reason for appointing trustees resident in the UK was principally her misconceived belief that the trust assets would be better protected in the UK from a possible attack by members of her extended family.

The settlor had received a tax note from the solicitors' firm at which the purported trustees were employed, which identified some potential implications of the Trust and the Company being moved to the UK. However, the tax note failed to quantify the tax that would be payable and did not make clear the tax impact at both company and trust level. Despite the tax note recommending that further advice be taken, this was not obtained by the settlor who was in poor health and whose health was of paramount concern to her and her husband at that time.

Accordingly, the Appointments were made without the settlor having taken detailed tax advice on the consequences of the Trust becoming resident in the UK, and no calculations were undertaken to quantify the extent of the tax consequences. As a consequence of the move of the Trust and the Company onshore, UK tax liabilities approaching 40 per cent of the value of the trust assets were incurred.

The setting-aside of the Appointments

The Royal Court observed that it is well established as a matter of Jersey law that a power to appoint new trustees is a fiduciary power, even where the power is vested in a person other than the outgoing trustee.

The Royal Court's statutory jurisdiction for setting aside the exercise of a fiduciary power is contained in Articles 47G and 47H of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (the Trusts Law).

Article 47G of the Trusts Law closely mirrors the test for setting aside transfers, dispositions, and appointments by a fiduciary on the grounds of mistake, which had been established through case law (see eg Re The B Life Interest Settlement [2012] JRC 229). It provides the court with power to set aside the exercise of a fiduciary power in relation to a trust in circumstances where: (i) the fiduciary made a mistake in relation to the exercise of his or her power; (ii) the fiduciary would not have exercised the power, or would not have exercised the power in the way it was exercised, but for that mistake; and (iii) the mistake is of so serious a character as to render it just for the Court to make the order sought.

Article 47H of the trusts law reflects the test for setting aside the exercise of fiduciary powers on the grounds of the rule in Hastings Bass as set out in the decisions of the Royal Court of Jersey prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Pitt v Holt [2013] 2 AC 108. Pursuant to Article 47H, the Royal Court can declare the exercise of a fiduciary power in relation to a trust invalid where the fiduciary in exercising the power: (i) failed to take any relevant considerations into account or took into account irrelevant considerations; and (ii) would not have exercised the power, or would not have exercised the power in the way it was so exercised, but for that failure to take into account relevant considerations, or but for its taking irrelevant considerations into account. Importantly, Article 47H specifically provides that it is irrelevant whether or not the fiduciary was at fault in exercising the power (thereby negating, for the purposes of Jersey law, that aspect of Pitt v Holt).

The court decided that the exercise by the settlor of the power to appoint the purported trustees could be impugned and set aside under either Article 47G or 47H of the Trusts Law.

Applying Article 47G of the Trusts Law, the court determined that the settlor was mistaken when exercising the power of appointment in that she: (i) failed to understand that the power was a fiduciary power to be exercised in the interests of all of the beneficiaries; (ii) wrongly believed that the exercise of the power would achieve her objectives of protecting the trust assets from her wider family; and (iii) did not appreciate and was mistaken as to the tax consequences of the transaction. Further, the court found that the settlor would not have exercised the power of appointment had she appreciated the true effect of the transaction. Applying the final limb of the test for mistake, the court determined that the mistake was of sufficiently serious a character as to render it just for the court to grant the relief sought.

The court also considered the requirements of Article 47H satisfied in that the settlor failed to take into account the true effect of the steps she was taking and the extent of the tax consequences and, had she been aware of such relevant considerations she would not have appointed the UK-resident trustees. The court observed that, in determining whether the late settlor would still have exercised the power of appointment in the same way had she taken into account 'relevant considerations'; an objective test must be applied based 'on the reasonable person acting in accordance with his or her duties'.

With regard to the appointment of the UK director and the transfer of the shares in the Company, the court determined that these transactions were undertaken for the sole purpose of giving effect to the exercise of the power of appointment and, accordingly, were treated as one related transaction. In setting aside these transactions, the court relied on Article 47I(3) of the trusts law, which allows the court to make orders consequential upon an order under Article 47G or 47H of the trusts law. The court was satisfied that making this order would not affect the position of a third party purchaser of real property from the company who had not been given notice of the grounds upon which the UK director's appointment might be avoided.

While the effect of the orders was to reinstate the retired trustee as trustee, and to deem to have it continued as trustee throughout, the court accepted that the retired trustee would not choose to resume trusteeship in the circumstances and gave directions blessing the retired trustee's decision to appoint a new trustee chosen by the beneficiary. The court made further orders under Article 45 of the Trusts Law; it released both (i) the retired trustee from any liability for not having discharged its duties to administer the trust during the period when it thought it had retired and had been replaced by the purported trustees and (ii) the purported trustees from liability for intermeddling with the trust property as trustees de son tort.


During the course of its 'trusteeship', the purported trustee had carried out two dispositive acts and a number of administrative acts which it sought to have ratified by the court. Although the court had relieved the purported trustees from personal liability, it recognized that such actions may be impugned on the basis that the retired trustee (which was the current trustee) did not participate in them or because the power or discretion purportedly exercised by the Purported Trustees was not able to be exercised by them as trustees de son tort.

The parties sought to rely on the Royal Court's earlier decision of Re BB, A and D 2011 JLR 672, in which the court ratified certain actions of a trustee de son tort (the trustee in that case not having been appointed by the correct power holder so that was a case of a void appointment rather than a voidable one) which it did in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to 'supervise and where necessary or appropriate [to] intervene in the administration of the trust'. The court considered, in reliance on paragraphs 42–82 of Lewin on Trusts, 18th edition that this jurisdiction arose from the need to avoid the havoc that would be caused from having to unscramble all of the actions of the purported trustees over several years and the trustees seeking to recover trust property from beneficiaries. However, the principle relied on in that case had not been the subject of further judicial scrutiny and had attracted adverse commentary. In particular, it had been asserted that:

  1. the passage referred to in Lewin related to a possible power on the part of trustees of certain trusts to confirm the exercise of powers purportedly exercised by the trustee de son tort, which is different from ratification by the Court (see Francis Tregear QC's article for Trust & Trustees, Vol 19, No 1, February 2013, pp 23–30); and
  2. Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 or the inherent jurisdiction cannot be relied on by the court to ratify past conduct of improperly appointed trustees, nor could it 'write into a trust instrument a retrospective power of ratification' which did not exist in the trust instrument itself, on the basis that this would amount to a variation of a trust which the Royal Court does not have power to do pursuant to either its inherent jurisdiction or its powers under Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 (see Dakis Hagen's and Bruce Lincoln's article for Trust & Trustees, Vol 19, No 5, June 2013 pp 469–74).

Accordingly, the court took the opportunity to clarify the scope of its jurisdiction to ratify or confirm actions taken by purported trustees. It was greatly assisted in this task by an opinion prepared by Lynton Tucker.

The court referred to three forms of ratification which it said may have the same practical result but which were conceptually different:

  1. Confirmation by perfection of an imperfect act or transaction. For example, confirmation by a principal of a contract entered into by an agent without authority. In such cases, a transaction which is capable of being set-aside becomes fully valid and enforceable.
  2. Confirmation by replacement of a doubtful transaction by a valid one with similar effect. In such cases, the state of affairs that was intended to have been effected by the doubtful transaction is brought into effect by a second, fully effective, transaction. It is crucial for this form of confirmation that the power remains exercisable.
  3. Confirmation by non-intervention in acts or omissions, which may not have been authorized but which were acted upon with the effect that the trusts are administered on the same basis as if those acts or omissions, had been authorized. The justification for non-intervention would be that the havoc and distress caused to the beneficiaries would outweigh the benefit in the trustee seeking to restore the value lost to the trust fund through the invalid acts. The court was clear that this form of confirmation will not be available if nothing has been done to give effect to the purported exercise of the power—for instance, if trust property purportedly appointed to a beneficiary absolutely has not in fact been transferred and remains in the trustee's hands.

The court drew a distinction between validation of invalid exercises of administrative powers and validation of invalid exercises of dispositive powers. The latter involved a change in the trusts on which the property was held and potentially the transfer of the underlying property to a beneficiary. Accordingly, the first form of confirmation (ie the Court perfecting or validating a hitherto invalid exercise of the power) would not be available in respect of dispositive powers as this would amount to the court varying the trust. It is well established under Jersey law that the court has no power to vary a trust save (i) in accordance with the court's recognized jurisdiction under Article 47(1) of the trusts law to consent on behalf of minor, unborn and unascertained beneficiaries to vary a trust in a case where all adult beneficiaries consent or (ii) in the context of a compromise of a dispute concerning a trust. So while the court could ratify the invalid exercise of administrative powers (even in cases where the trustees themselves would not have had power to do what the Court would authorize) the court had no power to ratify the purported exercise of dispositive powers.

While having much the same effect as ratification, the court considered that orders based on the second and third forms of confirmation would be preferable in the circumstances of the case. In particular:

  1. The present case involved the destruction of the validity of the appointment of the trustees (the exact opposite of ratification) and thus was different from Re BB where the goal was to preserve the validity of acts undertaken by the purported trustees. However, there was no difficulty in the trustee confirming the desired acts by re-exercising the power to the same effect or continuing to administer the trusts as if the acts were valid.
  2. Certain of the acts sought to be confirmed were acts of the company as to which there was doubt that the court had power to ratify. However, the court could direct the trustee to procure that the company continued to be administered as if the transactions had been procured or permitted by duly authorized trustees.
  3. The consequence of the court ratifying the administrative actions of the Purported Trustees, including allowing the sale of property by the company, might have been to confirm that the affairs of the company were indeed administered in the UK for tax purposes.
  4. The court observed that there are doubts as to the concept of validation by the court of invalid exercises of dispositive powers. Although this would rule out the first form of confirmation, the second and third forms of confirmation would generally be available.

In reaching its decision the court considered that the administrative powers conferred on the retired trustee or the new trustee under the trust deed (which expressly included the powers of an absolute beneficial owner of the trust property) were wide enough for the trustees to decide to leave the acts or omissions of the Purported Trustees undisturbed so that the trust would be administered on the basis that the acts or omissions had been validly done by, or with the authority of, duly appointed trustees. It was considered that the court could direct the trustee not to intervene in the unauthorized administrative acts and the unauthorized dispositive act of allowing the settlor's husband to live in the trust property on a gratuitous basis (as an action to recover compensation from him now for non-payment of rent in circumstances where his occupation had previously been agreed to be without charge would be unlikely to succeed and would cause aggravation to the family).

In relation to the further dispositive act of the Purported Trustees, by which they made a substantial distribution to a beneficiary, the court considered that the retired trustee or the new trustee had the power to confirm the distribution by way of a fresh exercise of the power to appoint in his favour (ie confirmation by replacement) and that this would be preferable over directing the Trustee merely not to seek to recover the property purportedly appointed to the beneficiary.

Rather than leave it to the retired trustee or the new trustee to consider what should be done about the invalid acts and omissions, the court adopted a pragmatic approach and considered that there was a 'sound basis' for an order directing them to take the appropriate steps. In particular, the Purported Trustees plainly could not exercise any discretion as trustees in view of the court having invalidated their appointment. The retired trustee was restored as trustee but had not acted as such for several years and was in no position to exercise its discretion. The new trustee had not yet been appointed and the court felt that it needed to ensure that all parties would know where they stand as a result of the court's orders.

However, the judgment sets clear limits on how far the court can go by way of ratification. The court observed that the kind of case which may cause difficulty included where the power which was originally sought to be exercised had lapsed by the time that the defective appointment was discovered, or can no longer be exercised in the manner originally intended, and no distributions have been made to give effect to the invalid exercise of the power. In such circumstances, the only way of resolving matters might be to apply to the court to have the trust varied pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Trusts Law or to bring a claim against the professional advisers concerned.


This carefully reasoned decision, which is of practical significance to the trust industry, highlights the importance that the Royal Court of Jersey places on securing the efficient and effective administration of Jersey law trusts.

In addition to illustrating the application of the Jersey statutory provisions, which allow for the exercise of fiduciary powers in relation to a trust to be set aside, the judgment provides welcome clarification of the legal basis and the extent of the power of trustees and the court to confirm actions taken by invalidly appointed trustees (and consequential actions taken by invalidly appointed directors of a company wholly owned by a trust). However, as each case will turn on its particular circumstances and ratification may not always be available, specific advice should be sought in connection with actions taken by invalidly appointed fiduciaries.

This article originally appeared in Trusts & Trustees Advance Access published July 8, 2016

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
17 Oct 2018, Other, St Peter Port, Guernsey

To showcase and celebrate the best of tech whilst providing networking, learning, business and social opportunities, Digital Jersey is once again hosting Jersey TechWeek.

24 Oct 2018, Conference, St Peter Port, Guernsey

The Fund Finance Association is a non-profit industry association in the fund finance market that aims to educate members, legislators, regulators and other constituencies about the fund finance market.

13 Nov 2018, Conference, St Peter Port, Guernsey

SuperInvestor is part of the SuperReturn Series - the world's leading private equity events.

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