Intention and sham: Heinrichs & Ors v Pantrust International SA & Ors [2018] JRC081A. Issue 10 (9th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Alexander, Stephen
• Is Part Of: Trusts & trustees. Volume 24:Issue 10(2018)
• Page Start: 1031
• Page End: 1033
• Publication Date: 2018-11-09
• Subjects: Trusts and trustees -- Periodicals; 346.05
• DOI: 10.1093/tandt/tty153
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1363-1780

Abstract

Abstract: An essential requirement for the creation of an express trust is the intention of the owner of the property to transfer that property to a trustee. Where such intention does not exist, but there has been an attempt to mislead or deceive third parties that it does, this may amount to a sham in certain circumstances. Where a sham exists, the trust will be invalid. The recent decision of the Jersey Court in Heinrichs & Ors v Pantrust International SA & Ors [2018] JRC081A provides important guidance on the identification and scope of sham.