Mrs C v RBC, Trilogy and YT

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeJ. A. Clyde-Smith
Judgment Date24 January 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] JRC 16
Date24 January 2013

[2013] JRC 16

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, sitting alone.

Between

IN THE MATTER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF MRS C

Mrs C
Representor
and
RBC Trustees (CI) Limited as trustee of the Empowerment Charitable Trust, the Saving Grace Charitable Trust, the OM-LC Charitable Foundation International, the OM-VC5 Charitable Foundation and the Well Trust
First Respondent
Trilogy Management Limited as trustee of the C Com Foundation, the JA Com Foundation and the Blue Sky Foundation
Second Respondent
The YT Charitable Foundation (International) Limited
Third Respondent

Advocate N. F. Journeaux for the Representor.

Advocate D. S. Steenson for the First Respondent.

Advocate S. M. Baker for the Second Respondent.

Advocate J. P. Speck for the Third Respondent.

Authorities

In the matter of H [2011] JRC 070 .

In the matter of H [2011] JLR Note 13 .

Trust — Beddoes application for directions in relation to administrative proceedings.

THE COMMISSIONER:
1

The YT Charitable Foundation (International) Limited (“YT”) in its capacity as trustee of the charitable foundation of the same name (“the Charitable Foundation”) has applied to the Court by way of a Beddoes application for directions as to the stance it should take in relation to administrative proceedings in which it is a respondent and which are hostile in nature (“the main proceedings”). On 17 th December 2012, the Court directed that the first and second respondents should be convened to the Beddoes application in their respective roles as trustee of the eight trusts referred to above (to which I will refer for convenience as “the sub-trusts”). The Court also ordered that the eight children of the late settlor and the representor, namely LC, CC, PC, AC, VC, JC, MC and MWHC would have liberty to file an affidavit or affirmation in relation to the Beddoes application and could be heard on the Beddoes application but not as parties and strictly at their own cost.

2

The representor now applies to be made a party to the Beddoes application or alternatively, to be permitted to file evidence and be heard at the Beddoes application. She does so on the same basis that she applied successfully to be joined as a party to the main proceedings as set out in the judgment of Sir Michael Birt, Bailiff, on 30 th March 2011 (JRC 070) (“the March 2011 judgement”). It was accepted by the parties that the test for convening parties to proceedings concerning charitable trusts is as set out in that judgment and as summarised in Note 13 JLR 2011:–

“The court may convene a person as a party to proceedings concerning a charitable trust if he has an interest in the trust which is materially greater than, or different from, that possessed by ordinary members of the public ( Att.-Gen v Dedham School (1857), 23 Beav. 350; 53 E.R. 138, referred to:In re J W Laing Trust [1984] Ch. 143, referred to;Bradshaw v University College of Wales, [1988] 1 W.L.R. 190, dicta of Hoffmann, J. not followed;In re Hampton Fuel Allotment Charity, [1989] Ch. 484, dicta of Nicholls, L.J. followed;In re E Trust, 2008 JLR N [17], considered). Given the importance attached to the wishes and intentions of the settlor in relation to a charitable trust, he will normally have such an interest and can therefore be convened to proceedings concerning the trust. A settlor's heirs (including those taking under a will) and executors can also be convened if they can assist the court as to the settlor's wishes and intentions. A person who has merely a general interest in a charity should not be given leave to intervene in proceedings concerning it.”

3

Mr Journeaux submitted that a central question for the Beddoes Court will be how far, if at all, should YT be directed to defend the structure by reference to the need to uphold the wishes of the late settlor. As endorsed by the Court in the March 2011 judgment, he said the representor was a useful person from whom the Beddoes Court could receive submissions on the subject of the settlor's wishes and as to their importance. The representor was in a good position to inform the Beddoes Court and make submissions as to the importance of directing YT to resist Trilogy's efforts to undermine her late husband's intentions in regard to the Charitable Foundation.

4

I accept, as did the Court in the March 2011 judgment and as do the parties to the Beddoes application, that applying the above test the representor is a person...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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