In brief
- The Royal Court of Jersey has handed down its reasons for blessing a trustee decision to adopt a major family restructuring and, critically for present purposes, for blessing in parallel a decision by the Protector to exercise his own powers of consent to implement that restructuring.
- The Court applied the established Public Trustee v Cooper test: the trustees’ decision was reached in good faith, fell within the range of decisions that reasonable trustees could reach, and was not vitiated by any actual or potential conflict of interest.
- The Protector’s own decision paper was treated on the same footing. The Court held that his decision was “entirely within the band of reasonable decisions which a protector might make” and blessed both decisions together.
- The case directly applies the Privy Council’s recent guidance in A v C [2026] AC 846 on the “Narrow” and “Wide” protector roles. The Court confirmed that a deliberate switch to a Narrow consent role was itself a reasonable trustee decision.
- This is a rare and useful illustration of a protector seeking the comfort of a court blessing for the exercise of his own discretion. Implementing the trustees’ restructuring required the Protector to make what was “at least arguably a momentous decision” in his own right.
Background
The case concerned a long-running and increasingly expensive dispute between the adult beneficiaries of a substantial family trust structure established by the late settlor, J, for the benefit of his children from two marriages and their respective families.
After years of unsuccessful restructuring negotiations between the adult beneficiaries, litigation costs had exceeded US$100 million, representing a ninth of the trust fund. The parties subsequently agreed a negotiated Adult Beneficiaries’ Restructuring Proposal, the “ABRP”, which would establish separate trusts for the respective family branches.
On 31 July 2026, following extensive consultation and advice, the trustees resolved to adopt the ABRP and sought the Court’s blessing of that decision.
The blessing application was brought under Article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 or, alternatively, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
A piggyback blessing
Separately, and of particular interest to contentious trusts practitioners, the Protector sought the Court’s blessing of his own decision.
Implementing the trustees’ decision required the Protector to exercise discretions under the various trust deeds and provide the necessary consents. The Court recorded that this was “at least arguably a momentous decision” in its own right. It was therefore appropriate for the Court to consider whether it should bless the Protector’s decision to support the trustees’ proposal and exercise his powers of consent on the merits, conditional on the Court first blessing the trustees’ decision.
Having reviewed the Protector’s decision paper, which it described as “admirable”, the Court held that his approach fell “entirely within the band of reasonable decisions which a protector might make”. It treated the trustees’ and the Protector’s applications in the same way and blessed both decisions.
This sequencing matters. Rather than bringing a standalone application, or simply granting or withholding consent unilaterally, the Protector joined his blessing application to the trustees’ application through his skeleton argument and with the agreement of all parties.
This approach may become the practical norm where protectors are required to exercise consent powers in relation to momentous trustee decisions.
Protector’s role: from Wide to Narrow
Under the original structure, the Protector held what the Court described as “the wider role”, meaning that he was required to consider the trustees’ proposals on their merits.
Under the new arrangements created by the ABRP, the protector’s role in relation to the restructured family trusts was deliberately narrowed. He would be required only to satisfy himself that a proposed exercise of trustee power was lawful.
Directly engaging with the Privy Council’s recent decision in A v C [2026] AC 846, the Court held that “both roles are perfectly lawful”. It concluded that the trustees’ choice of the Narrow role, justified by the stated objective of saving administrative time and expense, could not “possibly be said to fall outside the band of reasonable trustee decisions”.
This provides a clear and practical illustration of the point made in the earlier commentary on A v C. The Narrow or Wide nature of the protector’s role is not determined by any general presumption. It depends on the provisions of the relevant instrument, which in this case comprised the newly drafted trust deeds. The Court will readily bless an informed trustee decision to adopt either role.
Why this matters for protectors
This judgment provides a useful practical illustration of the principles considered in A v C.
First, it confirms that trustees, and settlors through the drafting of new trust instruments, remain free to choose a Narrow consent role for a protector. The Court will readily uphold that choice as reasonable where there is a rational justification, such as reducing administrative time and expense.
Second, and perhaps more significantly for contentious trusts practitioners, the judgment demonstrates how a protector may proactively seek and obtain the Court’s blessing of his own momentous decision alongside the trustees’ blessing application.
This offers a practical model for protectors seeking to limit their risk exposure while avoiding the additional cost to the trust fund of bringing a standalone application.
We consider that this approach is now likely to become standard practice where a protector exercising a Wide consent role is required to make a momentous decision.