Family trust disputes have a well-earned reputation for taking a huge amount of time to resolve at court at enormous emotional and financial cost to the very people they are meant to benefit. In the Matter of the Representation of JTC Trust Company (CI) Limited and Others [2026] JRC 169 is a useful example of a Court taking into account the toll on the family from the delay and uncertainty of the proceedings when exercising its case management powers to push the litigation forward. 

Background

The case concerns a complex web of Jersey trusts and Guernsey trusts established for the benefit of the family of a settlor who died in 2019. The settlor was survived by his widow and four children (two from his marriage to the widow and two from an earlier marriage), together with a number of minor and unborn grandchildren.

The trusts, together worth in the region of US$930 million, had been the subject of proceedings since the two children of the earlier marriage sought removal of the Protector and the appointment of new trustees. The Protector held a supervisory role under the trust structure with certain powers over significant trust decisions, although some of those powers had previously been suspended by the Court. Those proceedings were stayed once all parties came to agree that restructuring the trusts, rather than litigating, was the better course. Since then, the trustees have worked on successive restructuring proposals, including a fully negotiated Adult Beneficiaries' Restructuring Plan (the “ABRP”), reached after lengthy discussions among the four adult beneficiaries themselves.

By the time of the hearing on 27 May 2026, the trustees indicated that they were willing in principle to adopt the ABRP, subject to consultation with the guardians representing the minor and unborn beneficiaries and to further US tax and other advice. 

The cost of prolonged litigation

The Court was told that over US$100 million had been spent since 2022 on the removal proceedings and subsequent restructuring work, equivalent at one point to around US$4 million a month and that the restructuring proceedings alone had cost in excess of US$91 million, some 15% of the overall trust funds. The adult beneficiaries then asked the Court to impose a cap of US$120,000 per month on costs pending the final blessing application. The trustees, the Protector and the guardians all resisted the cap and the Court said that it would be a false economy to hazard a guess at future costs but made it very clear that all parties should keep costs to an absolute minimum going forward. The Court noted it would be “very unfortunate” if the parties did not keep costs to a limit moving forward. 

The Court also realised the human cost of the litigation. One of the adult beneficiaries gave a statement describing how “catastrophic” the dispute has been on the family's mental and physical health and the risk that the adversarial dynamics of court proceedings would undo the work done between the adult beneficiaries to re-establish relationships between each other.

The Court's approach to timetabling

The Court recognised that when making procedural decisions, it is entitled to take into account the personal toll that litigation takes on individual litigants, as distinct from corporate parties. The stress of the proceedings on the family was something the Court found was relevant to factor into its case management decisions.

On that basis, the Court made a series of directions which ensured that the case progressed at a quicker pace. The directions meant that the trustees had to make quick decisions for the next steps and if the stay was to be lifted, this would happen sooner rather than later. 

The Court rejected the trustees' preference for a later hearing in November, taking the view that the emotional stress on the adult beneficiaries, and the risk that delay would allow the fragility of the harmony between the family to fracture, outweighed the trustees' wish for more time to finalise tax and financial modelling advice.

Guardians: role and limits

The judgment also contains a helpful reminder of the limited role of a guardian appointed to represent minor and unborn beneficiaries in trust proceedings. The Court emphasised that guardians have no clients in the ordinary sense; their duty runs to the Court, and their function is to test and, if necessary, criticise proposals from the standpoint of those who cannot speak for themselves, not to formulate a competing, positive case for a larger share of the trust fund as though they were acting for a client with instructions. The Court declined to allow the guardians to commission further independent US tax or financial modelling advice without the Court's permission, on the basis that this would only add cost and delay without any corresponding benefit, given the advice already obtained by the trustees and the adult beneficiaries.

A separate application to discharge one of the two guardians, on the footing that the interests of the two sets of minor and unborn beneficiaries he represented were indistinguishable from those of the other guardian's cohort, was dismissed. The Court accepted that a possible future divergence of interest, and the guardian's existing privileged knowledge from earlier confidential discussions, justified his continued involvement.

Practical takeaways

The decision makes clear that Jersey's Royal Court, in its role overseeing trustees, is willing to set a firm timetable when drawn-out uncertainty is causing real harm to the people the trust is supposed to protect. Trustees considering a restructuring or blessing application should expect the Court to look closely not just at what is being proposed, but at how quickly a resolution is being reached.

The judgment is also a useful reminder for guardians and those instructing them that any step which risks adding cost or delay, such as commissioning fresh expert advice, may require the Court's prior approval.

Finally, where family relationships have started to recover during proceedings, the risk that further delay could undo that progress is something the Court will take seriously when deciding how quickly a case should move.

About the Author: Madeleine Frary 

Madeline Frary is a Solicitor in the Contentious Trusts and Estates team at Edwin Coe LLP. She advises trustees, beneficiaries, executors and personal representatives on contentious and non-contentious matters, including domestic and cross-border disputes. Her experience includes High Court litigation, mediation and multi-jurisdictional succession and trust claims. The issues considered in this article reflect the types of challenges that frequently arise in modern disputes where trustees, beneficiaries and the courts must balance commercial, legal and family consideration in seeking effective resolution. 

About the Author: Shams Rahman 

Shams Rahman, Head of Contentious Trusts and Estates, is a leading litigation solicitor with substantial experience in cases involving international inheritance disputes. He has managed complex, multi-jurisdictional disputes. Shams’ meticulous approach ensures that every aspect of the process is handled with precision. His ability to anticipate and address potential challenges makes him an invaluable asset to clients facing cross-border litigation issues.