Jersey: Proposed Amendments To The Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984: A Commentary

The States of Jersey's Chief Minister's Department recently issued a consultation paper on a proposed 7th amendment to the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. The consultation paper canvassed views on whether to amend the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 in twelve areas in which there were perceived either to be difficulties with the current legislation or where it was thought improvements could be made.

The areas for which views were sought and to which Baker & Partners responded are:

Area 1 – the certainty of objects – specifically whether there needs to be a beneficiary or purpose for whom the trust property is to be managed and applied at all times during the existence of a trust.

Area 2 – The rights of beneficiaries to information from the trustee

Area 3 – The reservation of powers by a settlor or third party

Area 4 – The arbitration of trust disputes in Jersey

Area 5 – The extension of the statutory provisions for trustees to self-contract

Area 7 – Extension of the trustee's indemnity provisions

Area 9 – Introducing an express presumption of lifetime effect for Jersey trusts

Area 10 – The powers of the court to effect a variation of Jersey trusts

Area 11 – The application of Jersey's forced heirship regime (légitime) to trusts

Area 1 – The need for a beneficiary at all times during the existence of a trust

The consultation paper identifies the impetus for change as the apparently damaging uncertainty in the law about the circumstances in which a Jersey trust is valid. In our view, there is no such uncertainty though: the circumstance in which a Jersey trust is valid for certainty of objects is, and has been for many years, settled and certain. It is not necessary for the beneficiaries of a trust to be in existence at the time of the trust's creation, provided they become ascertainable at some point during the trust period.

Article 10(1) and (2) Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 is a confusingly worded provision, which could be revised to be made clearer. It states that beneficiaries of a trust shall be (a) identifiable by name; or (b) ascertainable by reference to (i) a class, or (ii) a relationship to some person whether or not living at the time of the creation of the trust or at the time which under the terms of the trust is the time by reference to which members of a class are to be determined.

The principle of the certainty of objects, which any legislative amendment should reflect, is concerned with whether the object (i.e. the beneficiary or purpose) for whom the trust property is held is ascertainable: this is different to the beneficiary being 'living' or having 'a relationship to someone else, living or dead'. Objects are ascertainable by reference to their specific description or identity or by reference to a conceptually certain class during the trust period.

The issue that arose from Re the Exeter Settlement [2010] JRC 012 and Harper v Apex Trust Company Limited [2014] JRC 253 cases, cited in the consultation as the basis for seeking to clarify the legislation, is that the class by which the beneficiaries were to be ascertained was not conceptually certain because the class was unintentionally left blank in the trust instrument. Any amendment to the Trusts Law should ensure that objects of the trust should be ascertainable from the outset by ensuring the class is certain.

A proposal to reform the law to allow for a valid trust to be created without having to describe any objects but subject to an overarching power to add objects at any point during the trust period (which in Jersey is potentially indefinitely) is likely to give rise to more uncertainty, not less. There is also a legitimate concern that a trust which does not name beneficiaries but reserves a power of revocation or overriding power of appointment to the settlor may be vulnerable to being used as a vehicle for money laundering.

To the extent that the proposed amendments seek to avoid the situation that arose in Re the Exeter Settlement [2010] JRC 012 and Harper v Apex Trust Company Limited [2014] JRC 253, they appears to be designed to spare the bluches of professionals involved in the settlement of Jersey trusts in allowing a trust instrument to go forward to execution when it is incomplete. This is an issue of professional competence, which has little to do with providing more certainty on the requirement for certainty of objects under substantive trust law.

Area 2 – The rights of beneficiaries to information

Article 29 of Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 sets out the framework in which trustees should disclose (and are entitled to withhold) documents and information about the trust from the beneficiaries. It has long been criticised as an unwieldy and difficult provision in need of reform.

While a comprehensive re-drafting of Article 29 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 in similar terms to those in section 26(1)-(2) Trusts (Guernsey) Law 2007 would be welcome, the element of the Guernsey law stating that the trustee does, or should, owe any obligation to disclose trust information to the settlor is not uncontroversial. On a proper analysis, the trustee owes no duties to the settlor after the settlor has settled the trust. Additionally, the term 'trust official' used in the Guernsey law is not a known term in Jersey law and would need to be revised to take account of local circumstances if the Guernsey legislation is to be replicated in Jersey. It might be advisable for the reference to be 'a person to whom, under the terms of a trust, a power is granted or reserved under Article 9A'.

In our view, it would not be advisable for a reformulation of Article 29 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 to contain any prescriptive provision as to what categories of documents or material the court may order disclosure of and on what principles. It would rather be better for the court to determine what disclosure is appropriate in the circumstance of the case.

In our view, it would also not be appropriate, as has been proposed, to allow provision for a settlor to nominate a third party to whom the trustee may make disclosure instead of the beneficiaries. Being able to obtain an account of the trustee's administration of the trust is a fundamental entitlement of a beneficiary of which disclosure (outside of the context of litigation) is an inseparable part.

Area 3 – Reservation of powers by a settlor

The stated purpose behind the proposed amendment to Article 9A(1)(b) is to put beyond all doubt, as a matter of Jersey law, that it is permissible to allow a settlor to reserve to themselves all the powers in Article 9A(2) and for the trust still to be valid.

While we see nothing intrinsically objectionable in that proposal, we observe that the reservation of such powers is likely to raise an eyebrow in courts outside of Jersey as to whether or not the trust is genuine. Settlors should not be given the impression by these amendments that a Jersey trust in which the settlor reserves extensive powers and beneficial interests to themselves will not be capable of challenge outside of Jersey. A settlor that reserves to themselves all of the powers in Article 9A and the entire beneficial interest in the property is in effect very similar to an absolute owner of the trust property.

It has been proposed to extend the powers that may be reserved to a settlor or third party to include a power to nominate a forum in which trust disputes may be conducted. In the Crociani litigation the Privy Council expressly stated that the phrase "forum for the administration" in relation to a trust was an opaque term without a well-established technical significance. This phrase should not be replicated in the proposed amendment, but rather this firm suggested following phraseology should be adopted:

"(g) To change the proper law of the trust, or to change the place in which the trust is administered or to change the courts to the exclusive jurisdiction of which disputes concerning the trust shall be subject."

In our view, the proposal of the Working Group not to remove the trustee's duties in Article 21 in relation to the exercise of a power reserved to the settlor or a third party under 9A(2) appears to be contradicted by the proposed re-drafting of Article 9A(3) which provides that a trustee's compliance with such an exercise should not render the trustee liable. One may readily imagine a situation where the exercise of a fiduciary or special power by a lay protector or settlor may be vitiated as a fraud on a power or otherwise harmful to the interests of the beneficiaries. It cannot be correct as a matter of principle, that the trustee is under no liability if they are complicit in or otherwise give effect to such an exercise without question.

Area 4 – Arbitration provisions

In our view, legislation should not be enacted to render an arbitration clause in a trust instrument binding on a beneficiary. In our view the introduction of the arbitration of trust disputes in Jersey is neither necessary nor desirable, this is because:

  • The court has adequate mechanisms to ensure that trust proceedings may be conducted in private;
  • Arbitration is often at least as expensive as traditional court proceedings, if not more;
  • There is nothing in the terms of Article 9 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 to prevent an arbitral tribunal giving effect to the judgment of a foreign court that fails to apply Jersey law in any determination concerning a matter in Article 9(1);
  • There is no particular demand for the arbitration of trust disputes: there is adequate flexibility in the court's process to achieve many of the benefits of arbitration; and
  • The privacy of arbitration proceedings, and the confidentiality of their results, would be damaging to Jersey's standing as a leading international finance centre.

The arbitration of trust disputes presents a significant potential for the marginalisation of qualified Jersey legal practitioners from contentious trust disputes with consequent detriment to Jersey's economy.

Area 5 – Trustees self-contracting

While the consultation is directed at whether to amend the terms of Article 31(3) as it currently exists to apply it retrospectively, there are serious misgivings as to whether Article 31(3) should exist as part of Jersey trust law at all.

The existence of Article 31(3) is clearly directed at the convenience of the finance industry at the expense of the interests of beneficiaries. An arrangement whereby a trustee of multiple settlements is able to contract with itself in different capacities is fraught with inherent conflict. This conflict is not adequately reconciled by subjecting a contract or arrangement made under Article 31(3) to the duties of the trustee in Article 21.

Serious thought needs to be given to the interaction between the Article 31(3) and the proposals concerning the disclosure of information by trustees to beneficiaries under a reformed Article 29. There is a serious practical problem for beneficiaries to even know that their trustee has entered a contract with itself in circumstance where there is a strong presumption that the deliberations of the trustee to enter into such an arrangement can legitimately be withheld from the beneficiaries under the principles in Re Londonderry Settlement [1965] Ch 918 andRe Rabaiotti (2000) JLR 173.

Recent litigation which Baker & Partners has been involved in concerned multiple egregious examples of a corporate trustee borrowing money from trusts of which it is a trustee at interest and then lending that money, at a higher rate of interest, to companies held in a different trust for which it was also the trustee. The trustee secured such lending in favour of itself and with the trustee taking the spread (undisclosed to the beneficiaries) on the interest. Dick v Pantrust International SA & Ors [2016] JRC 021 was an example, par excellence, of the danger inherent in Article 31(3) and its interaction with the extent to which a trustee is accountable to beneficiaries for the substance of its decision making. In the Pantrust litigation, as it was only by happenstance that the beneficiaries discovered that their trustee had been engaged in inter-trust lending with itself.

Area 7 – Extension of indemnity provisions

Difficulties with the nature and extent of the trustee's indemnity for costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the course of administration appears to be a perennial issue for Jersey trustees. The consultation asks whether the existing statutory provisions governing the trustee's indemnity should be augmented to make clear what is thought to otherwise to be in doubt.

In our view, it is not necessary for Article 34(2A) Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 to be amended to expressly include (1) the rights of former trustee's officers and employees to enforce an indemnity in their own right, (2) express provision that former trustees hold the benefit of such an indemnity for themselves and for their officers and employees (3) provision to include within the scope of the indemnity, distributions made during the life of the trust. Such provision can be adequately provided for by those with the skills and knowledge to do it by appropriate drafting into the terms of an instrument of appointment, retirement and indemnity and the Royal Court has already approved such provision as reasonable. Baker & Partners is frequently asked to advise on the appropriate scope of indemnity provisions in trust documents and to undertake the necessary drafting.

Area 9 – Presumption of lifetime effect

It has been proposed to introduce into the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 a statutory presumption that a trust takes effect when executed so as to avoid the risk that it might be considered as testamentary instrument. In our response, Baker & Partners was of the view that statutory intervention in this area is not necessary, as any statutory presumption of lifetime effect would do no more or less than the current position at customary law.

Area 10 – Variation of trusts

The consultation also asks whether it would be of utility to introduce a power for the court to vary the terms of a trust without the consent of all beneficiaries. In our view, it was neither necessary nor desirable for the court to have a jurisdiction to vary the terms of a Jersey trust in circumstances beyond the powers it already has in article 47 Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984.

Many of the proposed amendments in the consultation paper are directed at providing certainty where there is a perception (whether accurate or not) that uncertainty exists. In line with this, it is difficult to see the desirability of a measure that enables the court to amend the terms of a trust as it sees fit. While it is desirable for the court to approve the variation of the terms of a trust on behalf of minors and unborn beneficiaries in the event of unforeseen changes in circumstance, the States should not seek to undermine the principle that adult beneficiaries must consent to any variation that affects their rights or interests. A power to vary the terms of a Jersey law is likely to engage Article 1, protocol 1 of the ECHR (the protection of the right to property), particularly in so far as beneficiaries have vested interests in the trust property.

An overriding power for the court to vary the terms of a Jersey trust might provide a release valve on the tension that currently exists in circumstances where a foreign court has made an order affecting a Jersey trust that cannot be given effect to in Jersey because of the firewall provisions in Article 9 and the beneficiaries of the trust do not all consent to the variation, as was possible in the decision in < b>In re IMK Family Trust 2008 JLR 250. However, this issue was not part of the the terms in which the consultation on the introduction of such a power was framed.

Area 11 – Légitime

There are currently restrictions, existing as part of Jersey's inheritance law, for Jersey domiciled testators as to what moveable property they may give away by will, known as légitime. The consultation proposes abolishing the principle of légitime as a basis upon which to challenge a testamentary dispositions by will to trustees.

The proposed amendment will operate to severely undermine the principle of légitime in Jersey succession law. The abolition of légitime in relation to testamentary dispositions to trusts should be considered as a part of a wider consultation as to whether Jersey wishes to abolish the principle altogether. To proceed with the proposed amendments in relation to trusts in isolation would lead to a strange anomaly which is difficult to justify whereby testators may avoid the effect of légitime when leaving their movable estate to trustees but remain subject to the principle where they do not.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Practice Guides
by Mondaq Advice Centres
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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