Jersey: Will Foundations In Jersey Draw Upon Jurisprudence In Civil Law Countries, Or Will They Develop Separately, Drawing Parallels With The Law And Practice Relating To Trusts And Companies?

Last Updated: 23 August 2017
Article by Zillah Howard

Introduction

Foundations were introduced in Jersey in 2009 pursuant to the Foundations (Jersey) Law 2009 (the 'Foundations Law'), providing an alternative to trusts for the increasing numbers of the Island's clients who are more familiar with the concept of a foundation than that of a trust.

Foundations have a long history in certain jurisdictions, having existed in Europe since the Middle Ages, when they were originally used for charitable or religious purposes. Private or family foundations were first introduced in Liechtenstein in 1926,1 as a continental European equivalent to an Anglo-Saxon trust.

When the introduction of the Foundations Law was being considered in Jersey, the common law jurisdictions of St Kitts, the Bahamas, and Nevis had recently introduced their own forms of foundation, and other jurisdictions (such as Guernsey and the Isle of Man) have subsequently followed suit. The result is that it is now possible to establish a foundation in a number of jurisdictions, some of which are civil law and others of which are common law.

In relation to Jersey foundations, it is interesting to consider what the approach of the courts will be, and whether they will draw upon the jurisprudence in civil law countries or will develop separately, drawing parallels to the law and practice in relation to trusts and companies.

In relation to Jersey foundations, it is interesting to consider what the approach of the courts will be, and whether they will draw upon the jurisprudence in civil law countries or will develop separately, drawing parallels to the law and practice in relation to trusts and companies

The Jersey foundation is not an exact equivalent to a foundation established in any other jurisdiction (whether civil or common law), and there are clearly certain similarities to be identified between foundations and both companies and trusts. Although there have not as yet been many cases brought before the courts in Jersey, the Royal Court has provided an indication on two occasions as to the approach to be taken with regard to issues relating to Jersey foundations and the interpretation of the Foundations Law.

The Royal Court has provided an indication on two occasions as to the approach to be taken with regard to issues relating to Jersey foundations and the interpretation of the Foundations Law

Re ALimited

In Re A Limited,2 the qualified member (being the council member with a regulatory licence pursuant to the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998) of the F Foundation applied for directions under Article 46 of the Foundations Law.

B was the only beneficiary of the F Foundation and also the beneficial owner of the companies which had established the F Foundation and the beneficial owner of its guardian. Alongside the qualified member, there were two other council members who were lawyers from the law firm which acted for B. The F Foundation owned the shares in an underlying company which was itself the owner of various companies which held substantial assets.

N Ltd had obtained judgments in Russia against B and was seeking to enforce those judgments against the F Foundation's assets. There were no allegations that the F Foundation had failed to perform its duties and nor were there any allegations of personal wrongdoing against it, the council members or the guardian. Having initially defended the claim, the F Foundation had insufficient liquid funds to continue to do so and the qualified member applied to court for directions to the effect that it should adopt a neutral stance as the proceedings continued. When notified of the proposed application to court, the other council members and the guardian made no comments but gave brief indications of their support for the application: none of them appeared at the hearing.

The judgment records that, so far as the court was aware, this was the first time that directions had been given under Article 46 and that counsel for the qualified member had not been able to find 'any example of the courts of any other common law jurisdiction giving directions under analogous powers to those contained in the Foundations Law'.

The Royal Court noted that, while foundations in common law jurisdictions share some of the characteristics of the traditional civil law foundation, they are governed by domestic legislation and the Foundations Law is the only source of law that provides for the formation and governance of Jersey foundations. Jersey foundations are 'distinctive and novel in important respects in the eyes of a common law company and trust lawyer' and legal issues should be 'addressed from first principles derived from the Foundations Law, with analogous reasoning that has developed in relation to other legal relationships and entities being cautiously deployed'. While the Foundations Law clearly draws in certain respects upon trusts and company law learning, the court noted that there are nevertheless significant differences between Jersey foundations and both trusts and companies.

Part 5 of the Foundations Law confers a supervisory jurisdiction on the courts which is important and to a significant extent sui generis. The jurisdiction can be invoked by a 'person with standing' (such as a foundation's qualified member) and allows for directions to be given pursuant to Article 46 where the court is satisfied that a direction 'will assist a foundation to administer its assets or to carry out its objects' or is 'otherwise desirable'.

Company law does not contain an equivalent jurisdiction to that conferred by Part 5 and, although there are certain similarities between council members and company directors, the court recognized that a council member's position could be more challenging than that of the directors of a trading company. As a wealth structuring entity, a foundation's role is similar to that of a trustee accepting donations and assets from a settlor to be held on the terms of a trust. Both trustees and foundations were 'less likely to know what claims to the assets donated to them may exist or what their merits may be than is a trading company in relation to assets it has acquired contractually and in the course of its business'.

Moving on to look at trust law, the court considered that the powers conferred by Part 5 are quite different from the well-established Beddoe jurisdiction which allows for the pre-determination of questions relating to the recovery of costs from a trust fund as between the trustee and beneficiaries. However, there are closer parallels with the general supervisory jurisdiction in relation to trusts which is exercised to assist in their interpretation and to determine whether or not to bless momentous decisions or to take decisions where a trustee surrenders its discretion.3

The court was satisfied that A Ltd's application fell within the scope of Article 46 and that the proposed change to a position of neutrality in relation to the Jersey proceedings was momentous: it would be made at a late stage in respect of a claim which could extend to the whole of the F Foundation's assets. Noting also that the qualified member was acting responsibly in difficult circumstances, with limited co-operation from its fellow council members, the court concluded that the qualified member required assistance and court protection, which could best be given by the court directing the qualified member to use its reasonable endeavours to procure the F Foundation to adopt a neutral stance in the proceedings and to comply with any orders which might be made during those proceedings.

Re C Trust Company Limited

Some three years after A Ltd's application, the qualified member of another foundation sought to invoke the Royal Court's jurisdiction pursuant to Part 5 of the Foundations Law, in Re C Trust Company Limited.4 This time, the qualified member (as the only council member) asked the court to declare that it had the power to make changes to the regulations of five foundations which would result in their dissolution, and to bless the qualified member's proposal to do so. The changes included amendments to the definition of excluded persons and to allow for disclosure of information and documentation. An alternative application was also made to the effect that, if the qualified member did not have the necessary powers, the court should itself make the proposed changes.

The court referred to Re A Limited and agreed that, when considering Part 5 of the Foundations Law and the power to give directions under Article 46 in particular, it is appropriate 'to have regard to the similar jurisdiction to be found within the law relating to trusts' and that the principles set out in Re S Settlement are helpful. The court applied those principles and concluded that the qualified member, supported by the guardian, had the power to act as it proposed to do; its opinion had been formed in good faith and was one which a reasonable council could take and had not been vitiated by conflict of interest. The qualified member was not surrendering its discretion but was asking for the blessing of a momentous decision, which the court was prepared to give pursuant to Article 46.

The court also observed that, if it had decided that the regulations did not confer the necessary powers to enable the proposed actions to be taken, it would have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 45 to change the foundation's regulations itself.

Conclusion

While the jurisprudence in relation to Jersey foundations is at an early stage of development, the Royal Court has already provided helpful guidance as to the approach to be taken with regard to issues relating to foundations and the interpretation of the Foundations Law. Although the foundation has its origins in civil law, the fact that the Jersey foundation is a statutory creation is recognized to be important and issues should be 'addressed from first principles derived from the Foundations Law, with analogous reasoning that has developed in relation to other legal relationships and entities being cautiously deployed'.5

While the jurisprudence in relation to Jersey foundationsis at an early stage ofdevelopment, the Royal Court has already provided helpful guidance as to the approach to be taken with regard to issues relating to foundations and the interpretation ofthe Foundations Law

The court has so far drawn comparisons with trusts and companies—recognizing both similarities and differences—and has applied principles in relation to the exercise of its supervisory powers pursuant to Article 46 which are equivalent to those used to assist in the interpretation of trusts and to decide whether or not to bless momentous decisions or to take decisions where a trustee surrenders its discretion to the court.

There is also a suggestion to be drawn from Re A Limited that it may be appropriate to refer to decisions of the courts of other common law jurisdictions relating to analogous powers to those contained in the Foundations Law, as and when such decisions become available.

The approach that the court has taken in these two cases, and its confirmation that judicial assistance will be available in appropriate cases, is important and one of the key factors to consider when choosing a Jersey foundation, together with other factors such as:

  • the flexibility of the Foundations Law, allowing for the creation of foundations to suit clients' specific structuring requirements;
  •  Jersey's stability (politically, economically, and geographically);
  •  Jersey's robust and highly regarded regulatory regime;
  •  the depth and breadth of experience among the Island's professional advisers; and
  •  accessibility from the UK so that, for clients with family connections or business interests in the UK, choosing Jersey makes logistical and practical sense.

The approach that the court has takenin these two cases, andits confirmation that judicialassistance will be available in appropriate cases, is important and one of the key factors to consider when choosing a Jersey foundation

Footnotes

1. The Law on Persons and Companies 1926 (PGR: Personen- und Gesellschaftsrecht).

2. Re A Limited 2013 (1) JLR 305.

3. Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901; Re S Settlement UJ2001/154; 2001 JLR Note 37.

4. Re C Trust Company Limited [2016] JRC 144.

5. Re A Limited (n 2), para 29(i).

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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