Hong Kong

Screenshot 2019-11-27 at 5.52.00 PMBy Nigel Meeson QC, CONYERS

 

Offshore trusts are used for a variety of different purposes relating to both private wealth and commercial transactions. They depend largely upon the existence of professional trustees able and willing to take on the business of being a trustee. In the modern world that does not simply involve the occasional glass of sherry with Lord Crawley to discuss the landed estates, and lunch in the City with the stockbroker to be reassured that the other trust investments were suitably diversified. The role of a modern trustee is much more nuanced and may involve being part of a more complex structure often involving one or more of the following: private trust companies, purpose trusts, reserved powers, non-diversified investments and complex financial instruments.

Against this background there are two important features of a modern trust deed which trustees pay particular attention: the so-called “anti-Bartlett” clause and the “trustee exoneration and indemnity clause”. Two recent cases, one from England and one from Hong Kong, will therefore be of particular interest to professional trustees.

Zhang & Ji v DBS Bank

The most significant decision is the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Zhang & Ji v DBS Bank [2019] HKCFA 45 delivered on November 22, 2019 which reversed the decisions of the First Instance Judge and the Court of Appeal.

DBS were the trustees of a Jersey trust settled by Zhang and Madam Ji who were the beneficiaries together with their minor sons. The trust held the sole share in a BVI company used as a private investment company, and for Ji was the company’s investment adviser. There was a Letter of Wishes directing the trustee to consult Ji with regards all matters and her recommendation should be final. The director of the BVI company also granted Ji authority to give instructions on behalf of the company. The trust contained typical anti-Bartlett provisions in a comprehensive form. Ji had caused the company to invest in certain high-risk currency-linked notes. Given the overall structure and the anti-Bartlett clause the trustee would not have been expected to be held liable for the losses suffered to the trust from the failure of the risky investments carried out by Ji. However, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal it was held that notwithstanding the arrangements and terms of the trust deed, the trustee retained a “high level supervisory duty” which it had breached.

Screenshot 2020-01-31 at 2.36.16 PM

Upholding anti-Bartlett provisions

Fortunately for DBS and for trustees generally, the Court of Final Appeal unhesitatingly rejected the reasoning of the courts below, which it said was plainly inconsistent with the express terms of the anti-Bartlett provision.

The trust also contained typical exculpatory and indemnity provisions relieving trustees of liability short of fraud, wilful misconduct or gross negligence. The Court held that even if there had been any supervisory duty, there was simply no basis at all for concluding that there was negligence to a “serious and flagrant degree” so that the trustees would have been protected in any event.

Trustees can now rest more easily in the knowledge that common sense has prevailed and the so-called “high level supervisory duty” does not exist. Anti-Bartlett clauses are to be construed according to their terms and mean what they say.

Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees

Another victory for trustees was achieved in England in Sofer v SwissIndependent Trustees SA [2019] EWHC 2071 where HHJ Paul Mathews sitting as a Judge of the High Court held that a fraudulent or dishonest breach of trust for the purposes of a trustee exoneration clause required that a trustee, both:

  1. committed a deliberate breach of trust, and
  2. either (a) knew, or was recklessly indifferent as to whether, it was contrary to the interests of the beneficiaries, or (b) believed it to be in the interests of the beneficiaries, but so unreasonably that no reasonable professional trustee could have so believed.

Finally, it should be mentioned that with effect from June 14, 2019, the Cayman Islands Trusts law was amended to add a new section, 64A, to give statutory jurisdiction to the Court to retrospectively correct a mistake made by a trustee by setting aside the exercise of a fiduciary power and making consequential orders. This removes any doubt that the decision of the English Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt [2013] UKSC 26 has no relevance in the Cayman Islands.

These are welcome developments for professional trustees.

 

 

Screenshot 2019-11-27 at 5.52.12 PM

W: www.conyers.com

E: nigel.meeson@conyers.com

T: (852) 2842 9553
M: (852) 6469 3359
F: (852) 2845 9268

Related Articles by Firm
Electronic signatures and virtual meetings — the Bermuda, British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands legal framework
The introduction globally of travel restrictions and containment measures arising from Covid-19 has significantly disrupted business, including creating logistical issues in closing corporate or financing transactions or holding board and shareholders’ meetings ...
There’s no place to wind-up like home
When entertaining a jurisdictional challenge to wind-up a foreign company with no place of business in Hong Kong, is it a material concern that alternative remedies for unfair prejudice are available at the company’s place of incorporation but not ...
Offshore Separate Portfolio Companies in the Family Office and Private Client World
SPCs and SACs are offshore limited liability companies with an added twist ... Could a SPC/SAC ever take the place of a trust?
Scheme away
Given current financial conditions in the equity markets, opportunities for privatisations abound and schemes of arrangement are all the rage again.
Shareholder rights to requisition a general meeting
Most articles of association of offshore companies listed in Hong Kong have provisions that empower shareholders to requisition a general meeting.
Offshore 2020 — themes and trends
With the first quarter of 2020 behind us, Richard Hall of Conyers Dill & Pearman’s Hong Kong office looks at the themes that are emerging for Bermuda, Cayman and British Virgin Islands entities, both in Hong Kong and globally ...
BVI court issues key decision on recoverability of costs
The decision is welcome guidance and clarification on the recoverability of costs incurred by non-qualified persons employed in BVI firms.
General meetings in the time of Covid-19
How the Hong Kong government’s regulations on group gatherings affect offshore incorporated companies.
The first red-chip listing on the SSE Star Market
On February 27, 2020, China Resources Microelectronics officially launched its initial public offering (IPO) on the SSE Star Market, becoming the first Cayman incorporated company to be listed in Mainland China ...
Registering private funds with CIMA
All Cayman entities which fall within the definition of “private fund” in the Private Funds Law, 2020 and which are carrying on business on or after February 7, 2020 have until August 7, 2020 ...
Private wealth and estate planning for People’s Republic of China citizens and residents
Driven by an exceptional period of Chinese entrepreneurship in the last decade, high-tech manufacturing, IT and fintech are now key components of the Chinese economy ...
Privy Council confirms that fair value in Cayman merger appraisal is different from fair value in Delaware appraisals
Fair value is to be determined by the Cayman Courts based on the overall scheme of the Companies Law.
Related Articles
Covering Ears to Steal Bells: Ignoring insolvency at risk of liquidation
The closest Chinese equivalent to the English idiom of ‘sticking one’s head in the sand’ is ‘covering one’s ears to steal bells’ ...
JV Compliance Issues during the Transition Period under the new FIL
On 1 January 2020, the Foreign Investment Law of the People’s Republic of China came into force ...
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
What we learned - In-House Community Counsels of the Year Awards
On May 26, 2016, the In-House Community hosted its inaugural regional Counsels of the Year Awards in order to celebrate outstanding ...


Mayer Brown JSM's association with Jingtian & Gongcheng
Mayer Brown JSM intends to form an association with the Hong Kong office of Jingtian & Gongcheng (Jingtian), which will be established upon the receipt of regulatory approval from the ...
Latest Articles
Watch again: “Is Covid-19 taking women lawyers’ careers back to the 1950s?”
A second chance to watch….. the opening Women In Law Dialogue Series Webinars: Asia and North America time-friendly (first aired ‘live’ in August 2020) ...
Covering Ears to Steal Bells: Ignoring insolvency at risk of liquidation
The closest Chinese equivalent to the English idiom of ‘sticking one’s head in the sand’ is ‘covering one’s ears to steal bells’ ...