The limits of the non-intervention principle
Recent case law from Jersey and the Isle of Man
Save in exceptional circumstances, the court will not interfere in the exercise of trustee’s discretionary powers. That is the non-intervention principle.
“We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies.” Close
Recent case law from Jersey and the Isle of Man
Save in exceptional circumstances, the court will not interfere in the exercise of trustee’s discretionary powers. That is the non-intervention principle.
The latest in a long line of judgments in this probate dispute, Rea v Rea [2024] EWCA Civ 169, was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 23 February 2024.
Only logged in subscribers have access to the PDF issue library. Log in to continue or subscribe now
From time to time, a disappointed beneficiary may challenge the validity of a will, by alleging that the testator lacks capacity to make a will, that the testator did not know or approve the contents of the disputed will, or even perhaps that the will was forged.
In Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576, the Court of Appeal appeared – controversially – to take the view that a court could not lawfully compel parties to a civil dispute to participate in an alternative dispute resolution process.
Beneficiaries are often unhappy about the extent to which an estate or trust fund has been eroded by legal costs.
Re Mattingley is a relatively recent decision of the High Court concerning an alleged secret trust.
The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 introduced pivotal substantive reforms to English land law, in particular ridding it of the outmoded concept of the trust for sale and replacing it with the trust of land.
Two recent authorities have considered the application of general costs rules to contentious probate and administration proceedings and the ability of personal representatives to rely on their indemnity for properly incurred legal costs from the estate.
Practitioners experienced in advising trustees as to the exercise of their powers will be very familiar with the court’s power to approve trustee decisions. The jurisdiction, which is an extremely convenient one, allows trustees to ask the court for a blessing of momentous decisions affecting the trust. The great benefit of the procedure for the trustees has generally been understood to be that, if their decision is approved, they are immune from a subsequent claim for breach of duty by a disgruntled beneficiary for carrying out whatever step the court has sanctioned. In Denaxe Ltd v Cooper and Another [2023] EWCA Civ 752, however, the Court of Appeal has put the cat among the pigeons. There, receivers by way of equitable execution (who have a similar right to ask the court for directions) were granted approval of a decision to sell certain assets of a company. After the receivership was later discharged, the company sued the receivers for negligently selling the assets at an undervalue and the Court of Appeal was required to consider the extent to which the approval order gave immunity to the receivers from the claim. This required the court to consider the true legal basis of the immunity which court approval confers. Although the upshot was that the receivers were, on the facts of the case, protected, the court’s reasoning makes clear that approval is not a magic bullet against all future challenges. As Asplin LJ said at the end of her judgment:
The Court of Appeal recently handed down judgment in Zedra Fiduciary Services (UK) Ltd v Attorney General [2023] EWCA Civ 1332.
The Capital Gains Tax treatment of disposals between separating and divorcing spouses or civil partners is a rare example of a recent tax reform which has worked swiftly, sensibly and to the advantage of taxpayers.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a disappointed beneficiary of a deceased’s estate will assume that chicanery has been committed in the testamentary process.
The dispute over the estate of Evan Hughes first went to trial in 2021, was partially reversed on appeal in 2022 and was eventually re-tried – with a diametrically opposed result to the result of the first trial – in 2023. The judgment of HHJ Keyser KC in Hughes v Pritchard [2023] EWHC 1382 (Ch) represents a useful example of the potential pitfalls of proprietary estoppel claims and the uncertainty inherent in this area of litigation, even after the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Guest v Guest [2022] UKSC 27.
It is fairly common for an owner of a flat to own their particular residence outright on a long lease, and also to own a share in the freehold as a shareholder of a separate management company.
Dean Brunt died tragically on 8 December 2007 at the age of 35, having stepped out onto a track in front of a train. After his death, his mother Marlene obtained letters of administration and Dean’s estate was distributed to her under the intestacy rules.
Lloyd’s is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd’s.