But the judgment has not named the settlor and beneficiaries, neither has it named the legal advisers who made the errors.
The application by Saffery Champness Trust Corporation was considered in April by the Bailiff, Sir Philip Bailhache, and Jurats Georgelin and Le Cornu.
It concerned the rectification of a deed of appointment and two deeds of variation.
Counsel had requested that the application should be heard in private, but this request was refused by the court, in the interest of public justice.
However, the court decided not to identify the settlor and beneficiaries, in respect for the privacy of a confidential family arrangement, and throughout the name of the trust is referred to as ‘a settlement’.
The court does not explain in the judgment why it has omitted to name the legal advisers.
The Jersey discretionary settlement was executed in 1986 and a parallel English settlement created in 1991.
In 1995 the trustee decided for fiscal reasons to convert the Jersey settlement into a combination of accumulation and maintenance trusts and at the time the trustees of the English settlement executed a deed of appointment which similarly created accumulation and maintenance trusts.
Acting on legal advice, the trustee executed a similar deed in respect of the Jersey settlement, intending that it would have the same effect as the appointment in relation to the English settlement.
However, it appears that there was a mismatch between the expectations of the English legal advisers and advice they received from a firm of Jersey advocates.
When it emerged that the Jersey appointment might not have achieved their intended aims legal advice was taken from a different firm of Jersey advocates.
This advice indicated that none of the deeds in question achieved the effect intended by the trustee.
The court concluded that a genuine mistake was made and ordered the rectification of the Jersey appointment, with the costs of the trustees to be met on an indemnity bases our of the trust fund.
The trustee is giving ‘due consideration’ as to whether those costs are recoverable from any of the legal advisers involved in drawing up the original documentation.
