![Headshot of Edward Mackereth](/media/otredl34/ed-mackereth.jpg?cc=0.27133942281930434,0.07581310967312077,0.16674735016381007,0.36171118760727405&width=1440&height=960&quality=90)
Edward Mackereth
Global Managing Partner | Legal
Jersey
![Headshot of Edward Mackereth](/media/otredl34/ed-mackereth.jpg?cc=0.31653818097562053,0.07395197125275846,0.2921016925850026,0.33839550515859684&width=300&height=300&quality=90)
Edward Mackereth
Global Managing Partner
Jersey
Big things are happening at Ogier. Change is embedded in everything we do. It is redefining our talent, our ways of working, our platforms of delivery, our culture.
Services
We have the expertise to handle the most demanding transactions. Our commercial understanding and experience of working with leading financial institutions, professional advisers and regulatory bodies means we add real value to clients’ businesses.
Sectors
Our sector approach relies on smart collaboration between teams who have a deep understanding of related businesses and industry dynamics. The specific combination of our highly informed experts helps our clients to see around corners.
We have the expertise to handle the most demanding transactions. Our commercial understanding and experience of working with leading financial institutions, professional advisers and regulatory bodies means we add real value to clients’ businesses.
Legal
Corporate and Fiduciary
Consulting
Banking and Finance
Corporate
Dispute Resolution
Employment law
Intellectual Property
Investment Funds
Listing services
Local Legal Services
Accounting and Financial Reporting Services - Ogier Global
Cayman Islands AML/CFT training - Ogier Global
Corporate Services - Ogier Global
Regulatory and Compliance Services - Ogier Global
Sustainable Investment Consulting
Our sector approach relies on smart collaboration between teams who have a deep understanding of related businesses and industry dynamics. The specific combination of our highly informed experts helps our clients to see around corners.
Ogier provides practical advice on BVI, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Irish, Jersey and Luxembourg law through our global network of offices across the Asian, Caribbean and European timezones. Ogier is the only firm to advise on this unique combination of laws.
Keep up to date with industry insights, analysis and reviews. Find out about the work of our expert teams and subscribe to receive our newsletters straight to your inbox.
Fresh thinking, sharper opinion.
We get straight to the point, managing complexity to get to the essentials. Our global network of offices covers every time zone.
About us
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Diversity, equity and inclusion
Information security
Innovation
Sustainability
No Content Set
Exception:
Website.Models.ViewModels.Components.General.Banners.BannerComponentVm
Insight
11 February 2013
Jersey, Hong Kong
4 min read
ON THIS PAGE
This was an application by a Trustee asking the Royal Court to exercise its powers to set aside a Deed of Amendment, a Deed of Exclusion and a Deed of Appointment by reason of mistake and/or seeking relief under the Hastings Bass principle. This was in effect the first opportunity the Court in Jersey had had to consider the Hastings Bass remedy since the Court of Appeal in England's decision in Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter. The Bailiff had directed that in the instant case an amicus be appointed to argue before the Royal Court on the Hastings Bass issue.
The settlement was governed by Jersey law. It was a life interest trust for the settlor and thereafter his spouse. The settlor's two sons would ultimately benefit. The deeds in question were part of a tax planning undertaken by the Trustee. The intended effect was to transfer life interests in two thirds of the Trust to the settlor's sons, free of the life interest held by the settlor and his spouse, thus creating new transitional interests under relevant UK tax legislation. The re-structuring would reduce the value of the settlor's estate for the purposes of inheritance tax, but that would only be fully effective if the settlor lived for a period of seven years from the date of the re-structuring.
Unfortunately the settlor did not survive seven years. Shortly after the deeds were executed in April 2008, the settlor was diagnosed with an aggressive and ultimately fatal form of Alzheimer's disease. The settlor died in September 2011. The mistake, claimed the Trustee, was in believing the settlor to be fit and healthy at the time of executing the deeds. If it had known of his condition, it would not have put in the place the planning.
Mistake
The Deputy Bailiff affirmed the test for mistake as set out in Re S [2011] JLR 375. In essence the Court is bound to ask itself the following questions:
Before making its findings the Court made some interesting obiter comments about whether the customary law of erreur was relevant in this area. The Court concluded that if there was a consideration of the validity of a gift of assets into a trust, then the principles of erreur may well be relevant. However, as this case revolved around an exercise of Trustee discretion, which did not involve a gift being made per se, it was not appropriate to consider the law on erreur, but rather the Court should consider the usual equitable principles which have derived from English law over the years.
Hastings Bass
The Trustee also sought to set the arrangements aside on the basis that it had failed to take all relevant matters (ie the true state of the settlor's health) into account.
The Court considered the various Jersey cases which had applied the rule in Hastings Bass. The Court rejected the Trustee's submission that the cases showed that Jersey law had established its own principle which could continue to survive in its pre Pitt v Holt form. The Court held that if Pitt v Holt remains good law after the appeal to the Supreme Court in England, a departure from the line of reasoning in the judgments of the Royal Court based on previous authorities is inevitable - either the Court has to follow the changed approach of the English Courts to the Hastings Bass doctrine, or it has to adopt some other reasoning based on principle for continuing to follow the pre Pitt v Holt approach.
On the matter of mistake, the Court concluded that as the question of whether life insurance should be put in place had been canvassed with the settlor, it showed the issue of the settlor's health had been considered. The Court did not understand why life insurance was not taken out. Accordingly it did not consider that the mistake was of so serious a character as to be sufficient to avoid the Trustee's exercise of power on the grounds of mistake.
As regards Hastings Bass, the Court said that as the settlor's survival for seven years was a key part of the planning, the Trustee was under a duty to consider whether the settlor was likely to survive that period. In terms of whether there was a breach of that duty, the Court found that as the settlor's health was considered (it again referred to the possibility of life insurance being taken out), it did not think the Trustee had failed to consider a matter which it had been under a duty to consider.
Accordingly, the Court did not need to consider the third limb of the Hastings Bass test, namely whether the Trustee would have acted differently had it taken relevant matters into account. It had taken the key matter (the settlor's health) into account. The Court then made some obiter remarks concerning the Hastings Bass regime generally. This Court thought that loss should lie where it fell. It thought that if a professional had been negligent, then the loss should fall there. It was not good for Trustees to have the fail safe ability to undo decisions made if this were not something available for an individual in respect of their own private affairs. Accordingly the Court concluded that if it had been required to decide the matter in light of the Jersey and English authorities as they currently stood, the decision would have been that the previous decisions of the Royal Court in connection with applications under Hastings Bass were wrong. If the Supreme Court however were to endorse the Hastings Bass approach, then the rationale previously adopted by the Royal Court could not be impeached and one would expect that a Court of first instance would follow them.
This is clearly an important decision. Ultimately the Court affirmed the Jersey approach on mistake, but, through its obiter comments, has raised serious doubts over whether Hastings Bass can survive if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal decision in Pitt v Holt. Consideration is being given in Jersey to a possible statutory Hastings Bass test.
Edward Mackereth
Global Managing Partner | Legal
Jersey
Edward Mackereth
Global Managing Partner
Jersey
Contact Edward
Back
Nick Williams
Partner | Legal
Jersey
Nick Williams
Partner
Jersey
Contact Nick
Back
James Campbell
Partner | Legal
Jersey
James Campbell
Partner
Jersey
Contact James
Back
Josephine Howe
Partner | Legal
Jersey
Josephine Howe
Partner
Jersey
Contact Josephine
Back
Ogier is a professional services firm with the knowledge and expertise to handle the most demanding and complex transactions and provide expert, efficient and cost-effective services to all our clients. We regularly win awards for the quality of our client service, our work and our people.
This client briefing has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Ogier. The information and expressions of opinion which it contains are not intended to be a comprehensive study or to provide legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for specific advice concerning individual situations.
Regulatory information can be found under Legal Notice
Sign up to receive updates and newsletters from us.
Sign up
No Content Set
Exception:
Website.Models.ViewModels.Blocks.SiteBlocks.CookiePolicySiteBlockVm