Trust litigation is evolving. Trustees remain under intense pressure, with beneficiaries bringing increasingly sophisticated claims involving self-dealing, disclosure failures, investment decisions, distribution disputes and removal applications. But where trustees are protected by trust structures, reserved powers or statutory regimes such as VISTA trusts, claimants are increasingly looking elsewhere. 

This session explores the expanding landscape of fiduciary liability, examining claims against protectors, independent directors and other professional service providers, including investment advisers. It will also consider cases involving fraud, where trustees or directors are appointed to lend legitimacy to a structure but later become embroiled in litigation when the underlying wrongdoing is uncovered. 

Drawing on recent litigation trends, the session will examine the claims shaping modern trust disputes, when fiduciary administration can lead to personal liability, and the practical strategies that distinguish defensible decision-making from conduct that creates personal exposure.  

Some of the most decisive victories in trust and estate litigation are secured long before trial. Standing challenges, limitation defences, arbitration disputes, venue battles and other threshold issues can reshape, or even end, a case before the evidence is heard. 

Drawing on the military thinking of the ancient Greeks, this session explores how timeless strategic principles can inform modern dispute resolution. The discussion will explore how early procedural decisions can determine the “battlefield” on which disputes are fought, how judgment calls about whether to fight or settle shape outcomes, and how reputation, preparation and information often prove decisive long before the merits are reached. Through real examples and practical experience, the panel will show how litigation strategy is as much about psychology, timing and positioning as it is about law. 

Combining historical insight with practical litigation strategy, the session will show how procedural decisions often determine the outcome of a case long before the merits are tested.

Will disputes are increasing in frequency and complexity, but the issues and solutions often vary significantly between jurisdictions. This comparative session explores common challenges arising from defective testamentary planning and how different courts respond to them. 

Topics include construction disputes caused by poor drafting, the blurred boundary between trust and will planning, and issues arising from executors who are inexperienced, conflicted or unsuitable for office. The session will also consider judicial attitudes to litigation conduct, including recent decisions discouraging the use of inflammatory affidavit evidence in family disputes. 

Set against the backdrop of increasingly international families, the discussion will address cross-border estates and procedural challenges, including parallel proceedings, conflicts of law, privilege, confidentiality, costs and enforcement. 

It’s often harder to litigate against a bad lawyer than a good one. This session will explore the costs repercussions of poor litigation, the challenge of explaining specialist fees to clients, and whether we are losing true trust and chancery expertise. 

Particularly in the offshore market, is the rise of the "dabbler" diluting specialist practice as more lawyers become generalists? What can we do to preserve specialist expertise, and how do we demonstrate its value? We will also consider why an aggressive lawyer is not necessarily a good lawyer.

This session explores the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding ownership of cultural property and long-lost possessions. While high-profile disputes such as the Elgin Marbles illustrate the political and cultural dimensions of restitution, the discussion will also consider how different categories of property are treated in law. 

From stolen or lost artworks, to archaeological artefacts removed from their place of origin and later sold, to the increasingly sensitive issue of human remains and repatriation claims, the session examines where law, history and morality intersect. It will compare how different jurisdictions approach restitution, limitation, title and cultural heritage, and the tensions between market ownership and cultural identity. 

Undue influence is the allegation that transforms family tension into full-scale litigation. This session examines the real-world dynamics behind such claims, including caregivers, confidants, isolation, late-life changes and shifting testamentary intentions. 

It explores how leading litigators prove or defeat these cases using documentary evidence, medical records, circumstantial proof and cross-examination strategy. The discussion will also consider comparative approaches, including civil law concepts such as vitiated consent and abuse of weakness, and how similar fact patterns can play out differently across jurisdictions. 

The claim everyone pleads, and no one can afford to mishandle.

One person's predatory abuse of an older person might be another person's dream come true. Love is in the air, and so is money. 

Framed as a debate, this session explores where the law should draw the line between protecting vulnerable people and respecting their right to marry. Along the way, the panel will examine the impact of marriage on wills and trusts, the UK's response to predatory marriage, trusts that distinguish between spouses and civil partners, the status of surviving spouses, and the challenges posed by pre- and post-nuptial agreements both onshore and offshore.

Trust disputes can have devastating consequences for family businesses, particularly where competing family factions are battling for control. Drawing on high-profile family dynasties as well as practical experience, this session explores the challenges of governing family companies in the midst of litigation, including the operation of anti-Bartlett clauses, preservation orders, and the role of trustees when business interests are under threat. 

The session will also examine practical strategies for resolving these disputes before the value of the family business is lost to conflict, or to the lawyers. 

Recent Guernsey decisions, including a Court of Appeal ruling on a clause in a letter of wishes and an anticipated judgment concerning a similar provision in a beneficiary agreement, are prompting renewed scrutiny of no-contest clauses. Despite frequent discussion in practice, there remains limited authority on their scope and enforceability. 

This session will examine how no-contest clauses operate across wills, estate planning documents and related instruments, including their limits where challenges are brought with reasonable cause and concerns about overly draconian drafting. It will also consider broader civil law perspectives on penal clauses and restrictions on litigation rights. 

A timely review of a widely used but still uncertain tool in succession planning.

Recent decisions in Guernsey and Jersey, alongside relevant Bermuda cases, highlight the growing judicial focus on the quality of trustee decision-making processes. In a Guernsey case, trustees’ restructuring decision was set aside for improper purpose and inadequate deliberation, with the court emphasising the importance of proper reasoning, contemporaneous records and the role of legal advice. In Jersey, a blessing was refused where trustee minutes were found lacking, with the court stressing that key deliberations must be properly recorded rather than relied upon in later evidence. 

This session will examine how the doctrine of inadequate deliberation is being applied across jurisdictions, including the function of trustee minutes, the extent to which reasoning must be recorded contemporaneously, and whether deficiencies can be cured by supporting evidence. It will also consider the wider implications for trustees in high-value, complex trust administration. 

Recent cases highlight the increasingly complex intersection between offshore trusts and tax considerations. In A Trust Company re the Z Trust, the Guernsey Court was prepared to vary a trust to resolve uncertainty over whether beneficiaries had become excluded persons, where this would otherwise have had adverse tax consequences. This raises broader questions about the extent to which courts will assist with tax-driven outcomes, and whether judicial willingness differs across jurisdictions. 

The session will also explore the limits of offshore court intervention in supporting tax outcomes, including whether statutory rights of reimbursement under UK tax legislation can be enforced against trusts without breaching the Revenue Rule. 

Another recent Guernsey decision considered the onshoring of a trust to bring it within the UK tax net, following a protector’s blessing to appoint a UK trustee in line with the beneficiaries’ moral preference to pay UK tax. The case raised interesting questions about the meaning of “benefit” in this context. 

The discussion will also touch on civil law perspectives, including the treatment of taxation in divorce and financial remedy settlements.

The return of our popular Open Forum, this session provides a round-up of key cases, decisions and appeals from the past twelve months that may not feature elsewhere in the programme. A chance to share insights, compare notes and highlight developments that have shaped practice over the last year.