Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v McGeoch: Key Legal Findings and Why This Case Matters

The Chancery Division’s decision in Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v McGeoch is one of those judgments that quietly reshapes how courts expect parties to behave when litigation spans multiple jurisdictions. At its core, the case is about possession of a family farm. But the real significance lies in the court’s robust application of Henderson v Henderson abuse of process principles, the Aldi Guidelines and the modern test for collateral attack abuse.

The court did not just overturn HHJ Glen’s decision; it delivered a clear message: if you have a claim that goes to the heart of a trust’s distribution plan, you must raise it in the proceedings designed to resolve that plan.

Below is a structured breakdown of the case, the legal issues and why the judgment matters for trustees, beneficiaries and litigators navigating multi‑forum disputes.

Background: A Family Trust, a Farm, and a Missed Opportunity

The Trust Structure

The appellant, Ocorian Private Trustees (Jersey) Ltd, acted as trustee of the No 3 Trust, one of four trusts created by the late Mr Lennie Clark McGeoch for his children including the respondent beneficiary.

Stapleford Farm

• Purchased in 2008 using loans from a family company;
• Occupied rent‑free by the respondent under a 2009 licence deed, terminable on six months’ notice; and
• In 2017, the respondent received £2.4 million from her father to buy the Farm but used it to purchase an Irish property instead.

The Equalisation Plan

As three trusts approached vesting in December 2022, the trustees developed a Distribution Plan to equalise benefits among the four children. The Farm had to be sold, either:

1. to the respondent for £2 million; or
2. to a third party after eviction.

Jersey Proceedings

Under article 51 of the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984, the trustees sought the Jersey Royal Court’s blessing for the plan. Hearings took place in:

• May 2023;
• November 2023; and
• July 2024.

The Jersey court’s January 2024 judgment approved the plan and gave the respondent until February 2024 to prove she could fund the purchase. She did not.

 English Possession Proceedings

The trustees issued possession proceedings in March 2024. The respondent’s July 2024 defence claimed she had irremovable status, either as a tenant or under an equitable licence.

This argument had not been raised substantively in Jersey.

HHJ Glen refused to strike out the defence and allowed amendments. The trustees appealed.

The Legal Issues on Appeal

The Chancery Division examined whether the respondent’s defence was an abuse of process on two fronts:

1. Henderson v Henderson Abuse

Did the respondent improperly fail to raise her irremovability claim in the Jersey proceedings?

2. Collateral Attack Abuse

Was her defence an attempt to undermine or contradict the Jersey court’s approved equalisation plan?

3. Aldi Guidelines

Should the respondent have notified the Jersey court of her intention to raise further claims in England?

4. Summary Judgment

Did her argument about lack of reasonable notice (paragraph 6e) have any real prospect of success?

Court’s Rationale: Where HHJ Glen Went Wrong

Aldi Guidelines Apply Beyond Commercial Litigation

The judge below had treated the Aldi Guidelines as limited to complex commercial multi‑party cases. The Chancery Division disagreed.

The Guidelines apply whenever:

• multiple proceedings are in play; and
• the court needs visibility of potential claims for effective case management.

The Jersey trust proceedings were sufficiently complex and commercial to trigger them.

The Respondent Did Not Raise Her Irremovability Claim in Jersey

HHJ Glen inferred that the defence had been before the Jersey court in July 2024. The Chancery Division held this was wrong.

Only a witness statement was before the Jersey court and it focused on purchase price, not irremovability.

A vague reference to an “equitable propriety claim” in a skeleton argument was nowhere near enough.

The Claim Should Have Been Raised by November 2023

By that stage, the equalisation plan and the Farm’s sale were central issues. The respondent’s failure to raise her claim:

• wasted time and money;
• delayed distributions to other beneficiaries;
• breached the Aldi Guidelines; and
• constituted Henderson v Henderson abuse.

Collateral Attack: Wrong Test Applied

HHJ Glen asked whether the defence “struck at the central decision” of the Jersey court.

The correct test (from Stopford and Harrington & Charles) is:

Does the defence seek a decision inconsistent with the earlier decision?

It did.

The Jersey court approved a plan requiring:

• sale to the respondent for £2 million; or
• eviction and sale to a third party.

The respondent’s defence sought to prevent eviction entirely.

That was a direct inconsistency.

Summary Judgment on Reasonable Notice

The respondent had been given over four years since the February 2022 notice to quit.

She had no real prospect of success on this point.

The Decision

The appeal succeeded.

The Chancery Division ordered:

• The defence be struck out;
• Summary judgment for the trustees on paragraph 6e;
• No permission to amend the defence; and
• No permission to add a counterclaim.

A clean sweep for the trustees.

Why This Case Matters

1. Reinforces the Aldi Guidelines

Litigants must disclose potential claims in parallel or future proceedings, even in trust contexts and even across jurisdictions.

2. Clarifies Collateral Attack Abuse

The judgment tightens the test: inconsistency with an earlier decision is the key.

3. Strengthens Henderson v Henderson Principles

If a party could and should have raised an issue in earlier proceedings, failing to do so may bar them from raising it later.

4. Highlights the Importance of Article 51 Blessing Applications

Once trustees obtain court approval for a distribution plan, beneficiaries cannot later derail it by raising new claims that should have been aired earlier.

5. Practical Impact for Trustees

Trustees can take comfort that courts will protect the integrity of approved trust plans against late‑stage tactical defences.

Conclusion

This case is a textbook example of how English courts expect litigants to behave when disputes span multiple jurisdictions. The respondent’s failure to raise her claim in Jersey was not just a procedural misstep, it was a strategic omission with serious consequences that was fatal to her subsequent argument.

The Chancery Division’s judgment is firm, clear and principled. It reinforces the message that litigation must be conducted efficiently, transparently and without ambush.