Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
GS, GT, KO, and AD, in their capacities as former employees of a former subsidiary of A appointed to represent the interests of the beneficiaries of the head trust, as a whole.
GTh, appointed to represent the interests of the HT sub-trust, CMM, appointed to represent the interests of the MM sub-trust, GT, appointed to represent the interests of the GT sub-trust, JES, appointed to represent the interests of the GS sub-trust, AD and KO, appointed to represent the interests of the AD sub-trust,
AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 51 AND 53 OF THE TRUSTS (JERSEY) LAW 1984 (AS AMENDED)
On 20 th May 2009 the Court declared that the "A" Employee Shares Trust ("the Trust") had failed for want of beneficiaries and that the five sub-trusts created within it were invalid. We now set out our reasons.
The Trust is on the face of it an employee benefit trust created on 21 st March, 2000, on the advice of English solicitors Baxendale Walker. It is governed by English law. The Representor ("Equity") and its predecessor as trustee are resident in Jersey from where the Trust has always been administered. The Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the application pursuant to Article 5 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 .
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.