FTAdviser.com

Advertising

High and ultra-high net-worth husbands and wives are unlikely to start shunting their assets to the Channel Islands and other offshore businesses following a landmark divorce court decision, according to a legal expert.

The Royal Court in Jersey has defied London's high court by refusing to order Indian millionaire jeweller Iqbal Mubarik to hand over money held in a Channel Island trust to his estranged wife Aaliya. The Dianoor owner was told to pay £18m from the trust last year.

Also, Bermuden lawyers are currently locked in battle over a similar decision that John Charman, chairman of Axis, should pay his wife Beverley assets from a trust domiciled on the island.

The court of appeal ruled she receive a portion of the £48m settlement from the trust after he disputed the high court's initial 2006 decision, arguing the money was for his heirs.

Jeremy Abraham, head of London private clients for Matthew Arnold and Baldwin Law, said he believed the Mubarik case would not give other offshore jurisdictions "pause for thought".

He said: "In terms of whether this is going to have more widespread implications than just being a decision in the Channel Islands, then I think the answer is no."

"And even in that case it was a decision relating to a specific fund in a case characterised by Mr Mubarek refusing to pay anything and not really having any assets in the UK they could get there hands on.

"So even though this might have made Jersey slightly more attractive, in that it has obviously made the view known it you can get some help there, I do not see it having much impact.

"And certainly, in terms of other places, a decision taken in Jersey is not going to give anyone in Bermuda pause for thought."

A statement from City law firm Ambrose Applebe following the court of appeal's announcement on Mr Charman's divorce made it clear the way the trust was set up and structured was key to the court's decision.

It stated: "Mr Charman said that the trust fund was a discretionary family trust, set up for his prospective heirs - his children had not then been born.

"He argued in addition that he was not able to compel the trustees to make all or part of the fund available to him and that the trust fund was therefore not a “resource” which should be divided up on divorce.

"The court found no evidence that the trust was set up for the purpose claimed by Mr Charman, who was a named beneficiary as well as the source of the funds. The trust should therefore be treated as part of Mr Charman’s assets, available for division in the divorce."