Abstract
Abstract The authors consider the contrasting approaches of the Royal Court of Jersey and the Supreme Court of Bermuda in construing the proper ambit of protector’s powers to veto or consent to a proposed distribution. In the Piedmont and Riviera case, the Royal Court adopted a wider view of the proper role of the protectors, with a duty to take their own view on the substantive proposals, while in Bermuda, at almost exactly the same time, the Supreme Court, considering very similar powers, took the view that the role of protectors when making decisions of this kind was more akin to that of the court on a blessing application, focussed on the Trustee’s decision-making process, and limited to a ‘watchdog’ role.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
