Successful judgment for Memery Crystal’s award winning dispute resolution team

The reasoning can be split up into two broad headings (1) legal and (2) procedural.

Legal reasons

1. There was no serious issue to be tried.

2. Even though documents might state that a sub trust is such, that does not mean that it is.  A sub trust proper can only be declared by a beneficiary and not trustees (which was the case here).  If declared by a trustee, it is simply another trust.

3. Just because Mr Barker was Protector of the main trust did not mean that he owed duties to beneficiaries of the “sub trust”. A protector of one trust is not a protector of another trust created by the trustees of the first trust, unless explicitly stated. Mr Barker did not owe the alleged fiduciary duties pleaded.

Procedural reasons

The Claimant was prevented from bringing the claim as the changes to the trust, to which the Claimant objected, had been approved by the Court in settlement of separate proceedings.  Any application to challenge those changes would have to be made in those proceedings.  A separate claim could not be brought for breach of fiduciary duty and/or unjust enrichment.

The Memery Crystal team included partner Harvey Rands, senior associate Nikola Lowry-Lee, associate Eleanor Hassani and trainee Suresh Patel.

Memery Crystal’s award-winning Dispute Resolution Team were voted “Dispute Resolution Team of the Year” at the Legal Business Awards and “Litigation Team of the Year” at the Lawyer Awards in 2014.

Find out more about what we are thinking at: https://www.memerycrystal.com/what-we-do/dispute-resolution/