[2020] James Dickinson and Jonathan Barham advised a trustee in the defence of a claim for USD17 million arising from alleged breaches of trust.

[2019] James Dickinson (with the assistance of Guillaume Staal) acted as an expert witness and provided an opinion for use in Hong Kong divorce proceedings addressing the question of whether the Jersey Courts would consider the “firewall” protection (conferred by Article 9 of the Jersey Trusts Law, 1984, as amended,) to be lost if the trustees of Jersey trusts submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Courts.

[2018 to 2020] James Dickinson and Guillaume Staal acted for a retired trustee of a Jersey proper law charitable trust in the defence of proceedings brought by the representatives of the executors of the Estate of X who claimed that (a) X was the de factor settlor of the trust, (b) that the trust was invalid as a matter of construction or in the alternative a sham, (c) that the trust assets were held on a resulting trust for the Estate X and (d) the appointment of the assets of the charitable trust was liable to be set aside. The firm worked alongside BCLP.

[2017] James Dickinson acted for a leading local trust company, which successfully applied for a Beddoe order on very short notice, by which the trustee sought permission to bring proceedings in England claiming in excess of £170 million prior to the expiry of a limitation period. The firm worked alongside a leading UK law firm.

[2014 to 2016] James Dickinson and Guillaume Staal acted for the principal beneficiary and his daughter (a minor) in relation to the resolution of multiple issues arising in a connection with a Jersey trust settled by a member of a Middle Eastern Royal Family. As part of its approval of a compromise (which resulted in two of the beneficiaries and their remoter issues remaining as excluded persons) the Court granted a prospective costs order so that the principal beneficiary could apply to have the settlor’s purported appointment of UK trustees set aside on the grounds of Hasting Bass or as a mistake. The purpose of the application (which was successful) was to set aside the purported appointment of the UK trustees in order to unravel UK tax consequences. The application was one of the first to be made under Articles 47B to 47J of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984. The Court’s judgment ([2016] (1) JLR 132) provides seminal guidance as to the ratification of acts where defectively appointed trustees (trustees de son tort) have acted as trustees.

[2011 to 2015] James Dickinson advised one of the directors of the trustee of a charitable trust, in which the trustee of three of eight sub-trusts sought an order that the charitable trust (which had assets worth over USD 500 million) be terminated and its assets distributed between eight sub trusts. The Court ultimately ordered that the trustee of the charitable trust be replaced, that the charitable trust be wound up by a new trustee and that its assets be distributed to the eight sub trusts (see [2014] JRC214).

[2008] James Dickinson appeared on behalf of a local trust company in relation to a successful application to rectify a trust instrument. [2008 JLR Note 20]

[2002 to 2009] James Dickinson (2002-2009) and James Gleeson (2008-2009) acted for the plaintiffs these internationally renowned and hotly contested breach of trust proceedings in which the Plaintiffs claims (including for interest) exceeded USD100 million. The case settled on the 102nd day of trial (at the time Jersey’s longest trial) and is the source of numerous Jersey authorities. Related proceedings included: –

• An application initiated by James Dickinson to remove one of the defendant trustees on the basis of a conflict of interest.
• A Beddoe application by a new trustee in which James Dickinson appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and in which the new trustee sought and was granted authority to adopt and pursue the same claims as the plaintiffs, to cover for the eventuality that the plaintiffs’ claims might time barred.

[2002 to 2003] James Dickinson acted for the trustee of in relation to disputed claims regarding the ownership of a £50 million bond portfolio, held by a holding company (“Rothfield”). whose shares (the “Rothfield Shares”) were subject to Jersey bare trusts held by Sinel Trust entities. The (Swiss) executor of the (Swiss) estate of the late Joseph Cyril Bamford (who established JCB) adopted the position that the shares in Rothfield until challenges to the validity of his will had been resolved. It was alleged by Mr. Bamford’s long-term girlfriend, Mrs. Ellis, that, as the shares in the holding company had been held in the joint names of herself and Mr. Bamford, that the shares were and should be transferred at her instance; she wanted the shares in Rothfield to be transferred to a new trust in Anguilla. The Sinel Trust entities applied for directions as to whether they should transfer the shares in light of the (potentially) competing claims. At first instance the Royal Court directed that the Rothfield Shares should be transferred at the instance of Mrs Ellis. This decision [2002/238A] was overturned on appeal brought by the Sinel Trust entities [2003 JCA048] which held that the shares should not be transferred and should be held by the Sinel Trust entities pending resolution of a dispute as to their ownership. The case ultimately settled.

[2001 to 2003] James Dickinson acted for an Anguilla based trustee in defence of claims brought by a beneficiary (in Jersey and elsewhere) (a) challenging the validity of a hedge fund’s discretionary employee benefit trust and (b) laying claim to ownership of 50% of the USD 135 million trust fund. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Jersey Court and alleged that proceedings should be brought in Anguilla. The Royal Court dismissed the jurisdiction challenge [2002 JLR 407] which was overturned on an appeal to Jersey’s Court of Appeal [2002/218] and [2002 JLR Note 45], including on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the trust instrument.