EE and The Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd

CourtRoyal Court
JudgeMatthew John Thompson
Judgment Date01 May 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] JRC 101A
Date01 May 2014

[2014] JRC 101A




Advocate Matthew John Thompson, Master of the Royal Court.

The Royal Bank of Canada Trust Company (Jersey) Limited

Advocate A. D. Hoy for the Representors.

Advocate D. M. Cadin for the Respondent.


Alhamrani v J P Morgan Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2007] JLR 527 .

Re Rabaiotti 1989 Settlement [2000] JLR 173 .

Schmidt v Rosewood [2003] 2 AC 709 .

Re Internine Trust [2004] JLR 325 .

Alhamrani v Morgan and Ors [2007] JRC 053 .

Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984.

Vieira v Kordas [2013] JRC 251 .

Settlement — application for directions.



This hearing is an application for directions in respect of a long running dispute between some of the former beneficiaries (“the beneficiaries”) of the A settlement (“the settlement”), and the respondent who was trustee of the settlement at all relevant times (“the trustee”). While the substantive dispute has been resolved, the beneficiaries still seek to challenge the fees of the trustee on the basis they are unreasonable. This judgment sets out how the fee dispute is to be addressed.


By way of background the settlement came to an end in 2012, following a series of orders made by the Royal Court. As part of those orders the trustee was entitled to recover its costs out of the Trust Fund on an indemnity basis.


During the dispute, in 2009 the beneficiaries issued a representation seeking to challenge the quantum of fees incurred on the basis that the trustee had incurred such costs including professional fees unreasonably or in breach of trust. It is clear that the beneficiaries cannot challenge the principle of the trustee recovering its costs in this matter because the Royal Court has already allowed the trustees to recover those costs. However the beneficiaries are entitled to challenge the amount of costs incurred by the trustee by reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Alhamrani v J P Morgan Trust Company (Jersey) Limited [2007] JLR 527.


The issue before me is that the trustee complains that the representation and a draft amended representation produced for the hearing today are insufficiently particularised and they wish to apply to strike out the representation on a number of grounds and oppose any application to amend. The beneficiaries in response complain they have not had sufficient information to plead any further than they have already why the costs incurred are unreasonable. The beneficiaries also seek letters of engagement, estimates provided and any correspondence about fees received to review whether the trustee had discharged the duty referred to at paragraph 66(ii) of the Court of Appeal decision in Alhamrani.


During the hearing I was informed that invoices of the trustee's own costs had been provided to the beneficiaries together with detailed time records. Invoices of the various law firms and other professionals involved had also been provided but without any narratives because of the present ongoing dispute about fees and because of concerns about privilege. Some of the other information requested had also not been provided although certain specific criticisms in correspondence had been replied to supported by documents. The trustee also expressed concern about who would pay for the costs of any additional information, should it have to be provided.


The view I have formed in this case is that the issue of what information the beneficiaries are entitled to, in order to decide whether or not to pursue their claim that costs have been unreasonably incurred, needs to be resolved first in this case.


This issue is important because, as noted by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Mr Garrod Fry v Mr Joshua Rowlandson
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 19 December 2018
    ...[2018] JRC 172. Halabi v Wilson and HMRC [2018] JCA 114. Vieira v Kordas and Anor [2013] JRC 251. In the matter of A (Settlement) [2014] JRC 101A. Home Farm Developments Limited and Others v Le Sueur [2014] JRC 131. De la Haye v Corbel [2004] JRC 140B. Ebor SA v Incat Constr. (Holdings) Ltd......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT