Ashley Dawson-Damer (Appellant) v Grampian Trust Company Ltd and another (Respondents) (Bahamas)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0037

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ashley Dawson-Damer

Respondent(s)

Grampian Trust Company Ltd

Lyndhurst Ltd

Issue

Did the First Respondent breach the fiduciary (professional) duties that it owed to the Appellant as trustee?

Facts

In 1973, the fortune of a successful businessman, Mr George Skelton Yuill, was put in trust for a class of beneficiaries which included the children and remoter issue (and their respective spouses and widows) of his grandson, Viscount Carlow (the “1973 Settlement”). Viscount Carlow had two sons, John and George Dawson-Damer. In 1982, John Dawson-Damer married the Appellant, Ashley Dawson-Damer, making her a discretionary beneficiary of the 1973 Settlement. Between 1989-1992, the 1973 Settlement was restructured. In 1991, the assets of the 1973 Settlement were transferred to a newly incorporated company, Spey Limited (“Spey”). In 1992, Spey divided the assets of the 1973 Settlement into four new settlements. The relevant settlement for this appeal is the Glenfinnan settlement (“Glenfinnan”) allocated for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the 1973 Settlement. The First Respondent, Grampian Trust Company Limited (“Grampian”), is a Bahamian private trust company which has, at all material times, acted as the sole trustee of Glenfinnan. In 2006 and 2009, Grampian distributed 98% of Glenfinnan’s assets (c.US$400 million) to four separate Bahamian law settlements known as Moray, Emo, Hewish and Came (the “Recipient Trusts”). The Second Respondent, Lyndhurst Limited, is a trustee of Emo, Hewish and Came settlements, established on 20 December 2006. The Appellant is not a beneficiary of the Recipient Trusts. The Appellant raised proceedings in the Supreme Court to set aside the 2006 and 2009 distribution of Glenfinnan’s assets as a breach of trust. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim. The Appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (“JCPC”).