Court resolves dispute between parties as to who should hold the power to appoint trustees following settlor’s death

The English High Court has recently approved an application to change the provision of a trust deed relating to the appointment of new trustees.[1] The change was necessary because the original power was reserved exclusively for the settlor, who had died. All adult beneficiaries of the trust supported the change, as did three of the four trustees.

This case illustrates the importance of having succession plans for the power of appointment of new trustees. It also addresses disputes between parties about changes to trust terms.


The case concerned an application to change the provision relating to the appointment of new trustees of a trust. The original settlement gave the power to the settlor during his life. The settlor had died. The application proposed to change the provision for appointment so that the principal beneficiary (as defined in the trust instrument) was granted the power to appoint new trustees, with the written consent of the trustees.

One trustee opposed the application. His view was that the trustees should have the power to nominate and appoint new trustees, with the principal beneficiary holding a veto power. The opposing trustee considered this a better proposal on the basis that:

  1. The collective view of existing trustees may be better informed as to the attributes needed and through their wider collective contacts they may be better able to identify suitable candidates than the principal beneficiary.

  2. Exercise of the veto power by the principal beneficiary would less likely result in any lasting discord than exercise of the veto power of the trustees.

  3. Beneficiaries can be ill fitted to make such important enduring appointments in the wider best interests of all beneficiaries. There are examples of unsuitably partisan and over compliant trustees being appointed by principal beneficiaries for their own ends.


The Court granted the application, noting that the change would not be departing radically from the structure the settlor first created. The case was not one where the settlor had originally entrusted the appointment of new trustees to the existing trustees, but rather had reserved to power to himself.

In rejecting the opposing trustee's arguments, the Court noted:

  1. There is no reason why trustees may be better able to identify suitable candidates than the principal beneficiary, and there was no evidence put before the Court to that effect. Further, even if it were true, likely there would be prior informal discussion, so the benefit of the trustees' experience, knowledge and contacts would be available to the principal beneficiary.

  2. The possibility at someone taking offence in relation to the exercise of the veto power existed whether the trustees had the veto power or the principal beneficiary had it. The power to nominate trustees was a fiduciary power and there was no reason to suppose the principal beneficiary would not take his responsibility seriously.

  3. A senior beneficiary, knowing the situation of all the beneficiaries (being members of his extended family), and having enjoyed a long relationship with the trust assets was in a better position than most to decide what qualities were needed in a new trustee.


The case, whilst fact specific, provides an interesting insight into what a Court will consider when considering changes to the power to appoint trustees and how the Court deals with the situation where one party opposed an application. As noted above, it could have been avoided had the trust deed provided for successor appointors following the settlor's death.


For more information, please contact Richard Norridge, Joanna Caen or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Richard Norridge
Richard Norridge
+44 20 7466 2686
Joanna Caen
Joanna Caen
Senior Consultant
+852 2101 4167

Akers v Samba: Trusts over foreign assets

The UK Supreme Court has held that the extinction of a company's beneficial interest under a trust on the transfer of an asset by the trustee to a bona fide purchaser without notice does not constitute a "disposition" under section 127 of the English Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act"). Accordingly, the transfer of such assets was not void, the assets could not form part of the insolvency estate of the liquidated company, and the beneficiary's interest in the assets was extinguished: Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6.

The Supreme Court also considered (albeit by way of obiter dicta) the effect of the lex situs in relation to trust assets.

Continue reading

Jersey court exercises its power to set aside the actions of a settlor and ratify those of a purported trustee

In the recent decision of the Royal Court of Jersey In the Matter of the Z Trust [2016] JRC 048, the Royal Court declared voidable and set aside the appointment of trustees based in the UK by the settlor of a Jersey trust. The court did so on the grounds that the settlor either made a mistake, or did not take into account "relevant considerations" at the time of making her decision. The court then considered its power to ratify the acts of the purported trustees during the period in which they believed that they were trustees, in order to protect the Trust from falling within the remit of UK corporation tax.

The case is an example of the application of Articles 47G & H of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, which was introduced as a response to the UK Supreme Court decision in Futter v Futter [2013] 2 AC 108. The Royal Court then had to consider the consequences of its decision to invalidate the appointment of new trustees, including whether, and if so, how, to approve acts taken by the purported trustee during its period acting as trustee.

Continue reading