Malabry Investments Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Royal Court
• Judge: (Crill, Deputy Bailiff):
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1982
• Date: 07 April 1982

ROYAL COURT

(Crill, Deputy Bailiff):

F.J. Benest for the Viscount;

J.C. Clyde-Smith for Lep Transport Ltd.;

D.F. Le Quesne for Dr. F. Coningsby, an intervening creditor.

Bankruptcydsastreproperty available for distributionfunds in company's bank account subject to trust in favour of named persons not available for distribution to general body of creditors

CourtsRoyal Courtjurisdictiongeneral equitable jurisdictionenables court to consider principles of English trusts law if no Jersey authority

Jurisprudencereception of English lawtrustsgeneral equitable jurisdiction of Royal Court enables consideration of English principles on creation of trusts if no specific Jersey authority

Trustscreationcertaintymust be certainty of subject-matter held on trust, of beneficiaries, and of extent of beneficial interests in subject-matterno specific form of words necessary if sufficient intention to create trust manifested

Trustscreationlaw applicablegeneral equitable jurisdiction of Royal Court enables consideration of English principles if no specific Jersey authority

CRILL, DEPUTY BAILIFF: Malabry Investments Limited, hereinafter called "the Company", carried on the business of supplying and the marketing of mobile homes. Included in its business was the supply of such homes to certain caravan sites in France. On the 13th July, 1979, the property of the Company was declared en dsastre. Arising out of those proceedings the Viscount has brought two Representations to the Court asking for directions. In both cases the question for me to decide is whether in each of the circumstances set out in the Representations a Trust of certain monies had been created which meant that the funds represented by such Trust were not available for distribution to the general creditors. None of the three counsel involved in the Representations was able to draw my attention to any Jersey case on the subject of Trust. I am satisfied, however, that the general equitable jurisdiction which the Royal Court has exercised particularly in recent years enables me to take note of the English Common Law and to find that if the concept of a Trust of the nature propounded by the Viscount is known to the law of Jersey then the Court may have regard to the principles creating such a Trust which apply under English Law. I was referred to In reKayford Ltd., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 279. The most helpful passage is to be found at 282 and it is as follows:

"There is no doubt about the so-called 'three certainties' of a trust. The subject-matter to be held on trust is clear, and so are the beneficial interests therein, as well as the beneficiaries. As for the requisite certainty of words, it is well settled that a trust can be created without using the words 'trust' or 'confidence' or the like: the question is whether in substance a...