Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles

ENFORCEMENT/FINANCIAL RELIEF/TRUSTS: IMK Family Trust (Mubarak v Mubarik and Ors)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : imk-family-trust-mubarak-v-mubarik-and-ors
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Aug 15, 2008, 11:48 AM
Article ID : 84843

(Royal Court of Justice; Deputy Bailiff of Jersey; 15 August 2008)

The husband and wife had created a Jersey discretionary trust: the assets included shares in a Bermuda company which acted as the holding company for the husband's business; the beneficiaries were the husband, the wife, their named children and other children. Following the couple's separation the husband excluded the wife as a beneficiary. In ancillary relief proceedings the English court awarded the husband just under £5 million. In order to be permitted to participate in the English proceedings, the husband was required to write a letter to the Jersey trustees stating that he wished them to assist him in meeting his obligations under the English order. Despite the letter being sent, no payments were made. When the total amount owing under the English order was £7.6 million, including costs and interest, the English court made an order varying the terms of the Jersey trust so as to require the trustees to pay the wife the sums due.

Unless a trustee had submitted to the English jurisdiction, which had not happened in this case, it was hard to see how any decision of an English court varying or altering a Jersey trust could be enforced in Jersey. Even if the trustees had submitted to the English jurisdiction, such an order would not necessarily be enforced. When an English court purported to alter the terms of a Jersey trust there was no jurisdiction in a Jersey court to give directions directing the trustees to act in a manner outside the powers conferred on them by the trust deed. The Jersey court could not enforce the English order in this case. However, the court would treat all the adult beneficiaries as having agreed to the variation of the trust in a manner consistent with the English order, and would consent to a variation on behalf of the minor and unborn beneficiaries, because it was in the interests of the minors and unborn beneficiaries to extract cash from the business in order to pay the wife.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from