Tag: Trust

Posted on

Dooley v Castle: Court of Appeal overturns jurisdictional objections, claims over alleged offshore pension scam can continue.

Dooley & Ors v Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1569  is the successful appeal against Russen HHJ’s first instance judgment which I discussed here – readers best consult that post for context, before reading on. For reasons I explain in that post, judicial relations between the UK and Gibraltar pre-Brexit engaged the Brussels 1968  Convention.

Carr LJ wrote the reasons for overruling the judgment, and the Court of Appeal does find there is jurisdiction in E&W. [35] she reminds us of the evidentiary burden at the jurisdictional stage

For the purpose of the evidential analysis, the standard lies between proof on the balance of probabilities and the mere raising of an issue. On contentious factual issues, the court takes a view on the material available if it can reliably do so; if a reliable assessment is not possible, there is a good arguable case for the application of the gateway if there is a plausible (albeit contested) evidential basis for it. The test is context-specific and flexible, and if there is an issue of fact the court must use judicial common sense and pragmatism, making due allowance for the limitations of the material available at an early point in the proceedings.

[41] ff the judge is held to have wrongly treated the relationship between Article 5 (mostly known for forum contractus and forum delicti reasons but also including a trust forum: A5(6) concerning trust-related claims in the courts of the trust’s domicile) and Article 13 (the forum consumptoris). [43] Articles 13 to 15 make up an entirely separate and self-contained section and there is no need or indeed allowance to first check whether Article 5’s conditions apply (including on the conditions for a ‘contract’ to exist), subsequently to check whether A13 ff (including the conditions for a ‘consumer contract’ to exist) apply with a consequence of disapplying A5. Both Opinion AG and judgment in CJEU C-96/00 Gabriel are called upon in solid support.

[48] Jurisdiction under Article 13 is thus a self-standing lex specialis and derogation from the general rule in Article 2. If jurisdiction is not established under Article 13, it may nevertheless arise under Article 5(1). But it is not necessary to establish jurisdiction under Article 5(1) in order to make it out under Article 13.

[49] The Judge’s error on this issue was material, in the light of his conclusion that any claim against Castle would fall within Article 5(6) (and so could not fall within Article 5(1)).

Continuing then on A13, the contentious issue is whether the Judge was wrong to conclude that the pensioners did not have the better of the argument for the purpose of A13:  i) that the proceedings were “proceedings concerning” contracts between the pensioners and Castle for the supply of services; and, if so, ii) that in England and Wales the conclusion of the contracts was preceded by specific invitations addressed to the pensioners.

Re i), [55] the Judge appears to have concluded that there was no contract, by reference to the lack of clarity as to the services to be provided by Castle beyond the contents of the Welcome Letter. On appeal Castle concede that a contract for services did exist between each pensioner and Castle, however that the services to be provided by Castle under each contract were limited to the technical execution of the relevant Deed of Adherence in each case and that therefore the proceedings, which made no complaint about the technical execution of the Deeds, were not “proceedings concerning a contract”.

Carr LJ [57ff] insists that the existence of a trustee-beneficiary relationship does not preclude the co-existence of a contract between the same parties, and, referring to language with strong ‘contract’ echo in the marketing, holds that there was indeed a contract between each of the pensioners and Castle, a relationship that went beyond mere technical execution of the deeds.

[61] ff then deals with ii), with the Court holding there is a good arguable case that each pensioner received (in the State of their domicile) a specific invitation addressed to them, such invitation crystallising at the moment that Management Services sent or handed them an application form. Carr LJ suggest that such an invitation might be sufficient for A13(3) purposes without more: A13 does not contain any express requirement for a connection between the invitation and the trader; the focus is on the existence of a sufficiently strong connection between the contract and the country of domicile of the consumer. However the claimants concede that there was a further requirement, namely that the invitation had to be made on behalf of the trader, here Castle. Arguendo, [66] Carr LJ holds 

there is a plausible evidential basis for the proposition that there was some sufficient connection between MS and Castle, including the possibility that MS was acting for Castle as a “middleman” of the type envisaged in the Schlosser Report (by cross-reference to the Giuliano/Lagarde Report). It is, for example, not in dispute that MS obtained Castle’s application forms and provided them to the pensioners. It appears that MS procured or facilitated production of all the complex documentation and declarations as required by Castle from the pensioners in the build-up to the application forms and transfers themselves.

[68] ff are the proceedings then “proceedings concerning” the contracts in question? The Court holds they are, at a general level for the proceedings are not about mismanagement of the trusts once established, but rather that the pensioners should never have entered the Schemes in the first place, and at a more specific level for the claims to relate to specific issues in the services agreement.

The claims can now proceed to trial where, as I noted before, applicable law will be one of the contested issues.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.1 and 2.2.9.2.2.

 

Posted on

Dooley v Castle. On Gibraltar, the Brussels Convention and trust management as consumer contracts.

After Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd, judgment in Dooley & Ors v Castle Trust & Management Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2682 (Comm) is the second recent case to apply the 1968 Brussels Convention in relations between the UK and Gibraltar. This time it is the consumer section of the Convention which is at the core of the jurisdictional discussion.

Defendant is a company registered in Gibraltar which operates as a professional trustee company. The litigation concerns overseas pension schemes, promoted principally by Montegue Smythe, a Cypriot firm which operated from an English address. The court did not have before it any contractual terms evidencing the relationship between Castle and Montegue Smythe [66].

Common law negligence or breach of regulatory or statutory rules are the claim. Applicable law [15-16] is announced to be a contested issue at trial but not one that featured in the current jurisdictional challenge.

Readers may be aware that prior to the Brussels I Regulation (2001) amendments to the consumer section, requirements to trigger it were quite different. Defendants argue that the consumer section is not engaged for claimants have not shown that the conclusion of the contract was preceded in the consumer’s domicile by a specific invitation addressed to them or by advertising. In support of their case that the requirement of A13.3(b) Brussels Convention was satisfied, claimants plea an extract from Castle’s website which was said to be an act of advertising in the UK.

CJEU Kalfelis, Engler, Gabriel and Pammer (the latter mutatis mutandis and with focus on the CJEU’s view as to its own previous authority under the Convention; for Pammer Alpenhof is a Brussels I case) were the core cases discussed. At [64] Russen J rejects ia Petruchova and Reliantco as relevant authority given their Brussels I(a) context.

The judge emphasises the restrictive interpretation of the consumer section and holds that Castle’s obligations to claimants rested fundamentally upon its trusteeship of the QROPS rather than any separate contract for the provision of financial administration services. There is no plausible evidential basis for saying a contract was concluded for the supply of services outside those which were identified by the Deeds and the Rules which were incorporated by Castle [68].

Any claim against Castle based upon non-performance of services would have to be based upon the Trust Deeds and the Rules incorporated by them. Any such claim would fall within Article 5.6 (equivalent to A7(6) BIa) which would lead to the same court – the Gibraltar court – having jurisdiction as it would under the general rule of A2 Brussels Convention [70].

The judge also held that even on the assumption that a particular claimant read the extract on the website before investing in the QROPS, the fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that the territorial requirement identified in  CJEU Gabriel was satisfied.

The tort gateway under A5(3) Brussels Convention was not much entertained for claimants did not put much weight on it. At [73] the judge located locus delicti commissi in Gibraltar and did not hold on locus damni possibly being in England or the UK (the signing away of the transfer of the funds in the UK potentially qualifying as locus damni. With interesting potential discussion of course of the EU v the E&W approach on same per UKSC Brownlie I and II.

The jurisdictional challenge succeeds.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.9.2.1 and 2.2.9.2.2.

Posted on

Rokkan v Rokkan. An excellent primer on the concept and consequences of characterisation in the conflict of laws.

Rokkan v Rokkan & Anor [2021] EWHC 481 (Ch) is most excellent material for anyone looking to teach and /or understand the concept of ‘characterisation’ in private international law /the conflict of laws.

It also of course shows how qualification may be used (albeit here unsuccessfully) to try and reverse the unfortunate consequences of a particular action. In essence, claimant is a son of the deceased (she died in 2016 domiciled in the UK having lived there for a long time) who in her  2012 testament had been given the funds in two Norwegian bank accounts of the deceased, which she had emptied in 2014 via transfers to the UK.

Upon the 1979 death in Norway of her husband, the surviving spouse had applied for “uskifte” or “deferred probate” by which, in broad terms, the surviving spouse may apply to the court for an order by which (s)he is allowed to possess the whole of the joint estate of the deceased and the surviving spouse, and becomes subject to various obligations. The law provides that when the surviving spouse dies the joint estate is divided in two and each half passes to the heirs of the deceased spouse and the surviving spouse respectively (who may of course be the same).

Under England and Wales inheritance laws there is no reserved share. For claimant to obtain part of the estate, he must qualify his claim as something else than one in inheritance. The routes he opts for, are contractual (the argument here being that by exercising the right of deferred probate, the now deceased undertook obligations which were contractual and are governed by Norwegian law) or in trust (applying for and being granted deferred probate gave rise to a trust, whereby the now deceased held the joint assets on trust for herself but also for the first deceased heirs. It is alleged that the trust is governed by Norwegian law).

The characterisation principles are laid out at 33 ff, with focus mostly on characterisation following lex fori. Miles J does not discuss the role of the Rome Regulations (one imagines parties had not done so either) and under Rome I in particular, plenty of exceptions (family relationships, constitution of trusts) might well kick in. At 39 ff for the contract claim and at 49 ff for the trust claim under the Hague Convention, he rather swiftly decides the arguments are contrived: the Norwegian regime is near-entirely determined by Statute and that the initial kick-off requires the surviving spouse to apply for it, does not in and of itself render the whole regime a contractual one.

Good teaching material. Geert.

EU private international law 3rd ed. 2021, ia para 1.13

 

Posted on

Saugmandsgaard ØE on Rome I’s lex societatis exception applied to trusts /’Treuhand’ in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand.

Update 20 October 2019 on 3 October the CJEU agreed.

Advocate General Saugmandsgaard ØE in C-272/18 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand opined early September (I have been busy) that the Rome Convention’s and Rome I’s lex societatis exception does not apply to ‘Treuhand’ (a trust-like construction) contracts between investors and the corporation they entrust to manage investment in real estate companies located in Germany. The relevant choice of court rule follows the standard Rome I (cq Convention) rules.

At the time of adoption of the Rome Convention, the Giuliano Lagarde Report went into a bit more detail as to what is and is not excluded:

Confirming this exclusion, the Group stated that it affects all the complex acts (contractual administrative, registration) which are necessary to the creation of a company or firm and to the regulation of its internal organization and winding up, i. e. acts which fall within the scope of company law. On the other hand, acts or preliminary contracts whose sole purpose is to create obligations between interested parties (promoters) with a view to forming a company or firm are not covered by the exclusion.

The subject may be a body with or without legal personality, profit-making or non-profit-making. Having regard to the differences which exist, it may be that certain relationships will be regarded as within the scope of company law or might be treated as being governed by that law (for example, societe de droit civil nicht-rechtsfahiger Verein, partnership, Vennootschap onder firma, etc.) in some countries but not in others. The rule has been made flexible in order to take account of the diversity of national laws.

Examples of ‘internal organization’ are: the calling of meetings, the right to vote, the necessary quorum, the appointment of officers of the company or firm, etc. ‘Winding-up’ would cover either the termination of the company or firm as provided by its constitution or by operation of law, or its disappearance by merger or other similar process.

At the request of the German delegation the Group extended the subparagraph (e) exclusion to the personal liability of members and organs, and also to the legal capacity of companies or firms. On the other hand the Group did not adopt the proposal that mergers and groupings should also be expressly mentioned, most of the delegations being of the opinion that mergers and groupings were already covered by the present wording.

Particularly in KA Finanz, the Court could have done a lot to clarify the scope of the Convention, but did not. Current case however offered a lot less beef to that particular bone for only with a stretch in my view could the issue be considered to fall under the corporate exception. The argument made was that given that the contracts instruct the Treuhand to manage the companies, and that there was ‘alignment’ (‘imbrication’ is the word used in the French version of the Opinion at 36; no English version yet exists) between the contacts and the by-laws of the companies concerned: these were geared in part specifically to facilitate the investment in the companies by the Treuhand.

The AG points out that there is no European code for company law hence no possibility to use harmonised substantive law to help interpret private international law. He relies therefore on the general interpretative rules, including predictability, and sides in my view justifiably with the issue, in essence, being about contractual obligations: not life and death of companies. A link alone with questions relating to corporate law (at 53) is not enough.

Geert.

 

Posted on

Ashley v Jimenez: Jurisdiction upheld despite choice of court ex-EU. No locus damni, locus delicti commissi or trust jurisdiction viz EU defendant.

In [2019] EWHC 17 (Ch) Ashley et anon v Jimenez et anon service out of jurisdiction was granted against a Dubai-based defendant, despite choice of court pro the UEA. That clause was found by Marsh CM not to apply to the agreement at issue. Jurisdiction was found on residual English PIL, which are of less relevance to this post. Forum non conveniens was rejected.

Service out of jurisdiction was however denied against the Cyprus-based (corporate) defendant in the case. Claimants had argued jurisdiction on the basis of Brussels I Recast Articles 7(2) (tort) or (6) (trust). Note Marsh CM  using the acronym BRR: Brussels Recast Regulation. As I noted earlier in the week  Brussels Ia is now more likely to win the day.

Claimants (“Mr Ashley” and “St James”) allege that £3 million has been misappropriated by the defendants (“Mr Jimenez” and “South Horizon”). In summary the claimants say that: (1) Mr Ashley and Mr Jimenez orally agreed in early 2008 that upon payment of the euro equivalent of £3 million, Mr Ashley would acquire, via a shareholding in Les Bordes (Cyprus) Limited, a holding of approximately 5% in the ownership of a golf course in France called Les Bordes and that the shares would be registered in the name of St James. (2) On 13 May 2008, Mr Ashley instructed his bank to transfer the requisite sum to the bank account specified by Mr Jimenez and the transfer was made. In breach of the agreement, the shares were never registered in the name of St James. (3) The agreement and/or the payment were induced by fraudulent misrepresentations made by Mr Jimenez. The claimants say that Mr Jimenez knew South Horizon did not hold the shares and was not in a position to transfer, or procure transfer, upon payment of the agreed sum and that, in representing that South Horizon held the shares, or could procure transfer, Mr Jimenez acted dishonestly. (4) In the alternative, the payment of £3 million gave rise to a Quistclose trust (on that notion, see below) because the payment was made for an agreed purpose that only permitted use of the money for securing transfer of the shares.

(At 82) qualifying strands relevant to the jurisdictional issues, are (1) representations were made by Mr Jimenez to Mr Ashley to induce him to invest in Les Bordes which he relied on; (2) an oral contract was made between Mr Jimenez and Mr Ashley in early 2008 under which Mr Ashley invested £3 million in Les Bordes; and (3) the creation of a Quistclose trust relating to the investment. Note a Quistclose trust goes back to Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1968] UKHL 4, and is a trust created where a creditor has lent money to a debtor for a particular purpose. Should the debtor use the money for any other purpose, it is held on trust for the creditor.

On Article 7(2), the High Court held that a breach of trust is properly seen as a tortious claim for the purposes of Brussels Ia. As for locus delicti commissi, the Court notes the question of where the harmful event occurred is less straightforward. Claimants rely on the Cypriot defendant, South Horizon, having paid away the investment money it received in breach of the relevant trust. That event took place in Cyprus where the bank account is based. There might be an obligation to restore the money in England, yet that does not make England the locus delicti commissi: at 128: ‘It seems to me, however, that the claimants in this case are seeking to conflate the remedy they seek with the tortious act which was paying away the investment. The obligation to make good the loss is the result of the wrong, not a separate wrong.‘

The High Court does not properly consider the locus damni strand of the claim against South Horizon. Given the test following from Universal Music, England’s qualification as locus damni given the location of the bank accounts is not straightforward yet not entirely mad, either. The Court did consider England to be the locus damni in its application of English residual rules for the claim between Ashley and Jimenez (who is domiciled in Dubai): at 101: ‘the dealings between Mr Ashley and Mr Jimenez concerning an investment of £3 million in Les Bordes took place in England in the early part of 2008. Loss was sustained in England because the payment was made by Mr Ashley from an account held in England’ (reference made to VTB capital).

On (a rare application of) Article 7(6): are any of the claims relating to the Quistclose trust claims brought against “… the trustee … of a trust … created orally and evidenced in writing” and which is domiciled in England and Wales?: Marsh CM at 129-130:

‘Article 7(6) does not assist the claimants. They need to show that there is (a) a dispute brought against a trustee of a trust (b) the trust was created orally and was evidenced in writing and (c) the claim is made in the place where the trust is domiciled. The difficulty for the claimants concerns the manner in which the trust came into being. As I have indicated previously, although the oral agreement between Mr Ashley and Mr Jimenez gives rise to the circumstances in which the Quistclose trust could come into being, there was (i) no express agreement that the investment would be held on trust and (ii) South Horizon was not a party to the agreement. The trust came into being only upon the payment being made by Mr Ashley to South Horizon at which point, and assuming South Horizon was fixed with knowledge of the agreement, the investment was held upon a restricted basis.

I also have real difficulty with the notion of the Quistclose trust having a domicile in England. It seems to me more likely that the domicile is the place of receipt of the money, because that is where the trust came into being, rather than the place from which the funds were despatched.’

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.

 

 

Posted on

Trust and freedom of establishment: some preliminary observations on the CJEU’s ruling in the Panayi Trust case

When I cannot add anyting sensible to others’ analysis, I let theirs speak for itself. Enjoy.

Corporate Finance Lab

On September 14th 2017, the CJEU ruled on the Panayi Trust case (Case C-646/15), to which we have already referred in an earlier blog post. The CJEU’s ruling in the Panayi Trust case will provide ample opportunity for debate and reflection in the near future, especially with Brexit coming into view.

However, in this blog post we will restrict ourselves to a brief presentation of the case and some first observations regarding the question whether trusts can indeed come under the scope of the freedom of establishment.

View original post 1,502 more words

Posted on

Trusts (Stiftung) and estate planning. You cannot have your cake, and eat it.

One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. Meaning once the cake has been eaten, it is gone and you no longer have it. (Apologies but this saying is so often misunderstood I thought I should clarify).

Anyways, the Flemish tax administration had something along these lines in mind when it recently ruled in a case involving a Liechtenstein Stiftung. Many thanks to De Broeck & Van Laere for bringing the ruling to my attention. The Inland Revenue generally employ quite a lot of deference towards trusts and Stiftungs of all kind. In the case at hand however it requalified the transfer of means from the Stiftung to the heirs of the deceased, as being of a contractual nature. That is because the deceased, upon creation of the Stiftung, had issued such precise instructions in the Stiftung’s by-laws, that the hands of the trustees (or equivalent thereof) had been tied.  This essentially takes away a crucial part of the Stiftung’s nature, and no longer shields the assets from the (Flemish) taxman. The cake has been eaten.

Geert.

 

Posted on

Who am I? USSC to rule on a trust’s citisenship in AMERICOLD LOGISTICS.

Update May 2016 the USSC held in March 2016. It held ‘ For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Americold’s citizenship is based on the citizenship of its members, which include its shareholders.’. I confess I do not know what that means – no doubt others do.

One night this week I was teaching a taster class to final year secondary school students (17-18yr olds). I decided I should make it challenging enough. This, I surmised, would help all those present. Either they would now run a mile from Law School, never to look back (thus taking away all doubt). Or their curiosity would be tickled enough for them to want to learn more (thus for them, too, taking away all doubt). I settled on CSR and conflicts: the Shell Nigeria case, with links to Kiobel (and Adam Smith, David Ricardo; special purpose vehicles; and the impending merger between Leuven’s AB Inbev and SAB Miller. All very exciting stuff!, in an allocated tome slot of 30 minutes). I hope readers will agree that conflict of laws does just the trick referred to above: scare off the doubters; pull in the doubters.

Anyways, that class was at the back of my mind as I was reading up on Americold Logistics. I am not a US trained or US qualified lawyer hence this posting may not be howler-proof however I understand that one particular avenue to gain access to US federal courts (as opposed to State courts; and over and above the issue being an issue based on federal law), is so-called ‘diversity jurisdiction’. This means the federal courts can hear a case if the citisenship of the parties involved is diverse: i.e. of at least two different US States or one of them being foreign. I also understand that to determine corporate citisenship, reference is made to the principal place of business (not therefore generally co-inciding with place of incorporation).

But how about trusts? What identity does a trust have with a view to diversity jurisdiction? In Americold Logistics, the Tenth Circuit sua sponte queried whether there was full diversity of citizenship among the parties. In particular, the judges challenged whether the citizenship of Americold Realty Trust, a business trust, should be determined by reference to its trustees’ citizenship, or instead by reference to some broader set of factors. This issue has deeply split courts across the country. Joining the minority of courts, the Tenth Circuit held the jurisdictional inquiry extends, at a minimum, to the citizenship of a trust’s beneficiaries in addition to its trustees’ citizenship. In this case, doing so destroyed diversity of citizenship among the parties. The issue is disputed, following relevant (seemingly inconclusive) precedent, summarised by SCOTUS here.  The USCC has now granted certiorari.

This judgment will be of quite some relevance to US legal (trust) practice. I think readers will agree that it was wise not to pick it, and the wider issue of trust identity, for lawyers in spe.

Geert.

Posted on

Akers v Samba (Court of Appeal). Hague Trust Convention’s rocket launcher fails to ignite, for now.

Update 1 February 2017. The stay was reinstated [2017] UKSC 6 (to the degree that is still effective) by the Supreme Court.

The Hague Trust Convention arguably is of limited (not obviously irrelevant) ambition only. It gives trusts a passport, so to speak, which ensures them entry into other jurisdictions. However such entry does not guarantee fuss-free onward travel. Some trusts for that reason often prefer not to travel, keeping assets etc, domestic. For once on a journey, all sorts of mishaps might happen. For others, the prospect of foreign shores is simply too enticing to resist. Evidently, residents of countries which do not traditionally employ trust-like concepts, likewise are often tempted to use common law trusts to surpass limitations in their own national property etc. law.

A common foreign element in the life of a trust is its holding of foreign assets, often real estate or shares in foreign corporations.

The analogy often used in describing the Convention’s approach to applicable law is that of the rocket-launcher v the rocket (the latter, as the Court of Appeal held in [2014] EWCA Civ 1516 Akers v Samba, ‘presumably when the rocket is in orbit’): Its provisions are obviously aimed in part at establishing the law applicable to trusts (see articles 6 and 7 that relate to identifying that law, and article 8 that defines what the law specified shall govern). But article 4 acknowledges that there are some preliminary issues to which the Convention and its applicable law rules will not apply.’

In Akers v Samba, the trusts concerned arose from transactions which took place between 2002 and 2008. In each of the transactions, Mr Maan Al-Sanea (“Mr Al-Sanea”), who is a citizen of and resident in Saudi Arabia, declared himself a trustee of certain Saudi Arabian shares for one of the claimant companies, SICL, a Cayman Islands company which is now in liquidation (and massively insolvent). SICL was Mr Al-Sanea’s family investment vehicle, which was managed in Geneva. SICL’s liquidators seek to challenge the validity of a disposition to Samba of the shares that were the subject of the 6 transactions, made just before SICL’s winding up order was made. The effect of the disposition, if the liquidators are right, was to deprive SICL’s creditors of shares to which it was entitled worth some US$318 million. The underlying issue, put shortly, is whether it was at least arguable that the shares were indeed held on trust for SICL.

The Court of Appeal at this stage is not concerned with whether the liquidators will ultimately prove to be entitled to a declaration that the Transfer was void. Nor with whether Samba might be entitled to a validation order in respect of the Transfer on the grounds that Samba was a good faith purchaser of the Shares: it is ‘simply’ concerned with whether or not to confirm a stay of proceedings in England, granted earlier. Reasons given for that stay were that each of the relevant trusts was governed by either Saudi Arabian law or Bahraini law, neither of which will enforce foreign (trust) laws or recognise any division of the legal and beneficial interests in shares. Sir Terence Etherton at the High Court [2014] EWHC 540 (Ch) had held that these proceedings should be stayed on the grounds that the courts of Saudi Arabia were clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum.

Lord Vos leading, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay after complete yet somehow fairly concise review of the most relevant existing scholarship on the implications of the various articles of the Hague Convention. (including the most recent by prof Hayton in the Recueil des cours). It was held:

i) On the assumption that the governing law of the declarations of trust is Cayman Islands law, article 4 does not operate to exclude the application of the Convention to the declarations of trust under the 6 transactions. Whilst Saudi Arabian law as the lex situs would still govern the question of whether Mr Al-Sanea had capacity to alienate the Shares at all, Cayman Islands law would govern the capacity of Mr Al-Sanea to alienate an interest in the Shares by way of declaration of trust, and the transfer of the beneficial interest effected by the declarations of trust.

ii) It was not appropriate in this case to determine on a stay or summary judgment application whether article 15 applied to the transfer of the equitable interests under the declarations of trust, because (i) the mandatory nature of the Saudi Arabian law rules was not explored in the expert evidence, and (ii) it would be better for the interaction between the application of the governing law of the trust to the validity, construction and effects of the trust under article 8, and the application of article 15(d) to the transfer of the beneficial interest in the Shares to SICL, to be decided after a full evidential hearing.

iii) It is at least arguable that it is to be implied from the terms of the declarations of trust in the later transactions that they were to be governed by Cayman Islands law under article 6. In that event, article 7 would not be engaged for those later declarations of trust. It would be better for all questions under articles 5, 6 and 7 to be determined after a full evidential hearing in the light of all the circumstances of the case.

Both counsel had argued that the case had monumental consequences: at 35: ‘There must be large numbers of trusts established under the laws of common law jurisdictions, onshore or offshore, that comprise registered shares in civil law countries amongst their assets. Mr Mark Howard QC, counsel for the liquidators, opened this appeal by pointing out that it would be remarkable if all those trusts were to be held to be ineffective. Mr Mark Hapgood QC, counsel for Samba, responded by pointing out that there was nothing to stop people purporting to put shares registered in civil law jurisdictions into common law trusts; it was just that the trusts would create only personal remedies in those jurisdictions and not proprietary remedies against third parties to whom the shares were transferred or in the event of the trustee’s bankruptcy’. It would seem the High court for now would seem to side with the need to ensure effectiveness of those many trusts which are a staple part of international finance and assets management.

To be continued, however. Geert.

 

 

Posted on

The corporate veil in wedlock – Supreme Court decides Petrodel v Prest on the basis of trust

Update 5 May 2021 see application in Malaysia in Ong Leong Chiou v Keller (M) Sdn Bhd.

Update 12 December 2019 now also confirmed as representing Scots law. See [2019] CSOH 102 OB v A b and another.

Update 21 September 2016. For an application in the environment field, see [2016] EWCA Crim 1043 R v Powell and Westwood and analysis by Robert Biddlecombe, who brought the case to my attention.

Postscript 21 September 2015: Petrodel was applied by the High Court in Wood v Baker. The corporate veil was pierced in a bankruptcy case.

I noted in my post on Eni that the waters remain deep in national law re piercing the corporate veil. Point made by the Supreme Court on 12 June 2013, in Petrodel v Prest (a matrimonial assets case which was decided on the basis of trust), where Lord Neuberger stated obiter  “if piercing the corporate veil has any role to play, it is in connection with evasion”.

Lord Sumption’s take was “there is a limited principle of English law which applies when a person is under an existing legal obligation…which he deliberately evades or whose enforcement he deliberately frustrates by interposing a company under his control. The court may then pierce the corporate veil for the purpose, and only for the purpose, of depriving the company or its controller of the advantage that they would otherwise have obtained by the company’s separate legal personality“. He added ‘The principle is properly described as a limited one, because in almost every case where the test is satisfied, the facts will in practice disclose a legal relationship between the company and its controller which will make it unnecessary to pierce the corporate veil.’

Lord Clarke, agreeing with Lord Mance and others, stated “the situations in which piercing the corporate veil may be available as a fall-back are likely to be very rare”.

The focus in the UK is very much a presumption against piercing the veil and leaving the distinct nature of corporations intact – consequently a high burden of proof for those wishing to pierce.

Geert.

%d bloggers like this: